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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thor Kottelin
thor.kottelin at turvasana.com
Wed Jul 25 14:20:57 CEST 2012
> -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tobias Knecht > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:04 PM > To: Alessandro Vesely; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > The point I would > make > here is, that there are techniques in place that can separate > reports > and that can proof authentication and that abuse departments can or > should use them I agree, especially as many reporters anyhow seem to use every @-containing string their Whois lookup returns. -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]