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] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dave Crocker
dhc at dcrocker.net
Mon Feb 29 16:09:11 CET 2016
On 2/29/2016 3:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 29-Feb-2016, at 12:08 AM, Ruediger Volk <rv at NIC.DTAG.DE> wrote: >> We have to assume that Internet number resource holders requested >> to establish abuse-c >> - usually are NOT focussed an abuse handling (different core business:-) > > With all due respect - assume that the number resource holder is a corporation engaged in, for example, brewing beer. ... > Wouldn’t they have a corporate IT team tasked with looking at compromises on their network that are causing abuse / DDoS issues ... > With abuse-c an external reporter can reach out to the appropriate team, ... +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]