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/db-wg@ripe.net/

[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Niall O'Reilly niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Thu Jul 4 11:31:38 CEST 2013

On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:53, Gilles Massen wrote:

> Well, the mail said 'no objections' - and that's correct. But if the
> absence of objections is based on a misunderstanding of the
> implementation (because the restrictions were not spelled out) the
> consensus is pretty worthless.

	+1

> As I can obviously only speak for myself,
> I'd love to hear from others if it was clear to them that an abuse-c
> could ONLY be linked to an organisation.

	This wasn't clear to me either.

	ATB
	Niall


	

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]