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 ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Mon Mar 7 13:14:36 CET 2016
On 7 Mar 2016, at 11:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> > wrote: >> >>> When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to >>> "abuse-c:". Problem solved... >> >> Pot, kettle, etc. >> /Niall > > It still leaves this question Denis posed unanswered > >>> How do you propose the NCC does that? > > Other than abuse-c and a record cleanup. > > I’m glad to see various people step up and reject abuse-c but is > there a workable suggestion? I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered this question adequately already. Best regards, Niall
- 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 ]