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] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo at vegoda.org
Tue Jan 14 16:57:32 CET 2020
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:48 AM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: [...] > A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute > (basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that > introduced it in the first place) This seems like a simple approach for letting network operators indicate whether or not they will act on abuse reports. If there's no way of reporting abuse then the operators clearly has no processes for evaluating reports, or acting on them. This helps everyone save time. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]