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] Options for extending "abuse-c:"
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Options for extending "abuse-c:"
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Options for extending "abuse-c:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu May 8 12:16:14 CEST 2014
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:03:02PM +0200, Denis Walker wrote: Dear Denis > Looking at your reply and others I think either I am misunderstanding the > problem, or everyone is misunderstanding my proposed solutions. > > I understood the subnet issue to mean an organisation has more than one > default abuse handling team within their organisation. For example they may > have three allocations and have a different abuse team for each allocation. > I did not expect an organisation to have hundreds of abuse teams, so I > don't think this solution would create too much of a problem. The > ORGANISATION object is not going to grow too large. I get it. I have mixed up both issues into one. Please excuse me, there is students party next to my office window ;-) Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Options for extending "abuse-c:"
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Options for extending "abuse-c:"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]