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] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Wed Sep 9 08:52:32 CEST 2020
On Tue 08/Sep/2020 16:33:20 +0200 Alex de Joode wrote: > A webform, for a regulator, most likely will be seen as an 'upgrade'. Note that > FB and Google also *only accept* complaints, notices etc via webforms. So one > can argue a webform is abuse@ 2.0 :) So I do not share you view that a webform > is a second rate instrument for accepting abuse notifications. > IME that's not true. I notice Google's auto-responses. Perhaps, I should set up a web form myself for receiving such replies...? Best Ale --
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]