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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 11:43:56 CET 2016
> On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in other emails, there was "abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types Sure - but as you point out nobody much seems to be implementing it so far - or at least, very few organizations. So yes, I’d welcome abuse-c being implemented more widely. I’m tired of hunting up contact information from comment fields, in particular. —srs
- 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 ]