<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">As for simple graylisting why use a even back then not terribly effective 2000s era technique at all?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Also - waiting for a 5xx smtp return code is ideal when deciding that a validation test has failed. You could actually have an email problem that isn't of the shoot yourself in the foot by deploying unsuitable anti spam measures
category and have to delay accepting mail.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-ios-signature">
<div style="direction: ltr;">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="dir="ltr""><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> S�rgio Rocha; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr">So I don't know about other regions not having the same needs. APNIC has adopted this for example.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-125</div>
<div style="direction:ltr"></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-ios-signature">
<div style="direction:ltr">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="dir="ltr""><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of S�rgio Rocha <sergio.rocha@makeitsimple.pt><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 22, 2019 11:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
<div> </div>
</font></div>
There are only one internet, the abuse problem its worldwide, the challenges for better management are the same, that's why all region are looking for the similar responses for the same problems. I support this proposals and other that give more capacity for
RIPE deal with abuses. <br>
<br>
S�rgio Rocha <br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- <br>
From: Piotr Strzyzewski [mailto:Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl] <br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 18:32 PM <br>
To: S�rgio Rocha <sergio.rocha@makeitsimple.pt> <br>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <br>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
<br>
<br>
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:37:07AM +0100, S�rgio Rocha wrote: <br>
> > i.e. 1 region on track, 4 still to go (RIPE included here). <br>
> <br>
> So it looks that this proposal it's not so avant-garde, since the <br>
> other regions are having the same needs and one of them already <br>
> include this policy <br>
<br>
The fact that the authori has proposed the same idea in all regions doesn't mean that "other regions are having the same needs".
<br>
<br>
Piotr <br>
<br>
-- <br>
Piotr Strzy�ewski <br>
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>