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 ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Wed Aug 17 20:58:38 CEST 2016
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:47:09 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: > ox <andre at ox.co.za> wrote: > >So, to be clear - I am not saying that I THINK ripe should file > >criminal charges (THEY MUST) > > Well, OK, I did miscounstrue your comments, so for that I apologize. > thank you Ron. I also apologize for being overly aggressive in my reply > But for all the reasons I've already noted, RIPE NCC actually DO NOT > do what you think "THEY MUST". They do not call in the police each > time some clever forger flim-flams them. > Yes, I agree. they do not currently - but, being a public organization, they have additional obligations to file criminal complaints when the organization is a victim of a crime ( as well as all the other things I have already said) > If you think you can change that, by all means, you're free to try. > But for all the reasons I've already noted, I do not think that will > change, nor do I think it should. > > I would really rather that law enforcement spend their limited time > and resources chasing down terrorists, bank robbers, child molesters, > child pornographers, and all such other scum-of-the-earth as deserve > their special attention. > > > Regards, > rfg >
- 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 ]