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] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Tue May 21 18:39:35 CEST 2019
Jordi, On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:31:24PM +0000, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > If you're acting in good faith you do not need the validation. So other people do not need to validate your abuse contact. > It just works. If you're acting in bad faith then additional validation will not change your behavior. You just check your > > ---->>> Right, but those folks *then* are violating the policy. the proposal does describe a compliance measurement. Gert's example is serving that by the letter and you claim "policy" is violated that way. Where exactly is the "policy" written down in 2019-04? -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]