This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities]
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Recent Trends in List Discussion & RIPE Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Thu Mar 10 09:59:49 CET 2011
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > That is only useful if the organization doing so has some sort of > oversight or escalation power over what the receiver of those > complaints is supposed to do. > > It might actually make sense to involve the dutch CERT in this. Which one? I presume you are thinking about GOVCERT.nl ? If I am right, what would be that CERT's role with regard to this discussion? > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: > >>Agreed, especially if the procedure provides for handing complaints to >>external abuse teams, e.g. according to IP allocations. Wilfried (wearing my ACOnet-CERT scarf for a moment :-) )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Recent Trends in List Discussion & RIPE Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]