[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Thor Kottelin
<thor.kottelin at turvasana.com> wrote:

> That is really a side issue though. My point was that MAAWG and RIPE are
> dissimilar communities with dissimilar memberships. Whether those
> dissimilarities are minor enough for RIPE to refer to MAAWG documents
> instead of continue creating its own is a matter for consensus.

Er, the very same memberships if you look at organizations.  If the IP
and routing people come to RIPE and make one set of policies, without
knowing anything at all about what their colleagues from the very same
SP's abuse and security teams are doing at other events .. what does
that say?

> It is the volume that hurts, not the percentage.

Yes that's why I was more like "put yourself in the shoes of a large
provider first".

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)