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] definition of abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Luis Muñoz
lem at isc.org
Fri Aug 17 20:04:58 CEST 2012
On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, lists at help.org wrote: > When you bring up an issue about following standards these are the kind of screwball messages you get from the so-called abuse community. You have the people running the list trying to end a valid discussion. That is because they if they have standards these people cannot run around making stuff up as they go along to fit their personal agenda. Of course the one fellow has a home page where he wraps himself in a curtain and calls himself "emperor Shane" http://www.time-travellers.org/. I think that about sums up the abuse "community" running this list. I think you are the one trying to end a valid discussion. Shane's question is perfectly valid: Why does a working, widely accepted, "de facto" standard definition needs to stand out in court? -lem
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]