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] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Sep 25 16:36:59 CEST 2017
herve.clement at orange.com wrote: > To be clear regarding the acceptability of the auto-responder: > > It refers to "If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks > (including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact > attribute will be marked as invalid" So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone: - registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information point to a PO box in Panama or BVI. - sets up an abuse mailbox with an autoresponder, where all emails are thrown into the bin - ignores all attempts at contact regarding abuse queries, whether from LEAs or not If this is the case, what problem is this proposal trying to solve? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]