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] Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Mar 11 02:33:47 CET 2019
In message <EA68C6C9-B6F4-4B41-AF1E-FF63C174B164 at blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote: >RIPE members and NCC staff should have the ability to face their accuser, >but if they're hiding behind a veil of anonymity that's problematic. >Personally I also find it very hard to engage in any meaningful debate with >"someone" if I have absolutely no idea who they are, who they represent or >what their agenda is. +1 I concur 100%. Moreover, I think it's not even a good use of bits to go around "casting aspersions" from behind a veil of secrecy. I confess that I myself hdo use and have used anonymous accounts on some platforms, but never for advocacy of anything where I had some hopes of people taking my words seriously. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Constructive Approach & Anonymity (Was RE: Verification of abuse contact addresses ? )
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]