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] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alexander Isavnin
isavnin at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 14:46:09 CEST 2018
Dear Brian, colleagues! I would like to remind about one of my objections: This policy will not seriously improve data quality, because it allows to check only one field in database. If one wants really to improve data quality by automated checks, more complicated policy should be developed. Also, may i suggest to run "the method by which they(NCC) would plan to implement this proposal" once, to display current situation with abuse-c in database? Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]