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] [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 ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Jan 22 17:07:56 CET 2018
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have > several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are > talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where > the responsible LIRs aren't responding at all, and this means a very > big harm to the networks being abused. Is that proportional? We're not discussing perpetration of abuse; we're discussing whether 2017-02 is fit for purpose. Nick
- 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 ]