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] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Mon Jan 22 14:48:19 CET 2018
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:42:09PM +0200, ox wrote: >I have not seen any objections to the process of emailing a alpha >numeric number to abuse-c and then having that number entered into a >website (after solving a capcha) >This would solve many problems as it would mean that the abuse-c exists >and is functional and not an auto-responder or other bot Did my email somehow not make it to the list? I believe I clearly objected to anything of this sort. And, moreover, the IA clearly states that the NCC has *no* mandate to prescribe to operators how they handle abuse email. Additionally, the "community" has no mandate to prescribe to the NCC exactly how to implement a policy - this is a contractual matter. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]