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] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
dbwg at c4inet.net
Thu Mar 3 01:17:57 CET 2016
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:10:33AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >i am hesitant to mandate behavior beyond that necessary for the >ncc to maintain accurate records of resource 'ownership'. >beyond that is me telling someone else how to run their network. >i suspect they will listen to their management before they >listen to me, and rightly so. I don't like the whole concept of "if there is no response, we will use some random email that was, at one stage, involved in creating the org object. If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that should not be the job of the NCC... rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]