[anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals

In message <51C977BF.1090908 at powerweb.de>, 
Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote:

>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>Sounds like a good start ... but I doubt if this should
>be the job of the anti-abuse-wg or its chair.
>
>I would rather prever, if there would be somebody
>at the RIPE NCC having this job, and setting up
>another wg maillinglist (like abuse-audit at ripe.net) ...
>
>I personally do not like to be flodded with
>discussions about specific networks, that
>might or might not be audited again ...
>
>If this gets changed, Im +1

I can understand the concern, so yes, I personally wouldn't have any
objection to there being a separate mailing list for discussions of
issues with specific networks or, as I put it, specific allocations.
(I can easly imagine that there might exist some cases in which there
are noticable problems with some specific allocation that are not
really problems for the relevant AS as a whole.)


Regards,
rfg