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] Verifiability (was: WHOIS (AS204224))
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verifiability (was: WHOIS (AS204224))
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verifiability (was: WHOIS (AS204224))
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 04:28:47 CET 2015
It hasn't worked worth being able to trust any LIR fed data so far over the past few years that we've had iterations of this discussion on this wg I will let Ron continue repeating himself and you can continue to advocate for "we are not the Internet police" --srs > On 03-Nov-2015, at 8:12 AM, Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:06:56AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> It needn't be done except as an additional verification step for >> new asns and suspect ones > > Sigh. Having an ASN assigned involves exchange of signed > contracts between sponsoring LIR and end-user. These, as well as > company registration papers or passport copies(!) have to be > approved by the NCC before assignment takes place. Exactly *what* > purpose would a phone call or fax (why not TELEX if we're doing > retro tech?) serve? > > rgds, > Sascha Luck >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verifiability (was: WHOIS (AS204224))
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Verifiability (was: WHOIS (AS204224))
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]