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 ]
andre at ox.co.za
andre at ox.co.za
Thu Mar 3 09:35:22 CET 2016
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:25:50 +0900 Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: <snip> > where you define responsibility. the ncc is not a regulator, it is a > coordinator. if you want to be told how to run your network by weenie > vigilantes, go to arin. > randy > whahahaha I think the take away here is that abuse-c should contain accurate data. What is the point if that any/all of the data could be fake or is empty? Who decides what/which data fields is/are relevant/important and could be fake/non existent etc? How/if/or/whatever the specific receiver of the data responds (/dev/null - etc) is perfectly up to that network...
- 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 ]