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] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Wed Dec 5 09:59:01 CET 2012
On Tue 04/Dec/2012 17:11:28 +0100 Denis Walker wrote: > > If each of your customers is a separate business (even if it is an > individual) who will be doing much of the management themselves, > including handling any abuse complaints for their assigned address > space, then you need a bit more setup. I think that the general case is that some customers just want to get connected while some others want to manage abuse. Customers may change their mind after some time, of course. Wasn't the design supposed to ease overriding the abuse handling object at will?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]