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/[email protected]/
[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Mon Mar 7 10:18:39 CET 2016
Not aiming at Michele... On 05/03/16 11:54, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c > people would try to contact whatever contact they could find. The abuse-c as an operational information is certainly useful. The technical implementation is certainly not as useful as it could be (and I side completely with Gert here). But I continue to disapprove the mandatory nature of the abuse-c, it is not helpful, on the edge of counterproductive: the willing will have them anyway. The unwilling will put anything in that passes the syntax test. And as a reporter, I prefer a clear "I don't care" over wasting my time on an ignored report. So advertising the abuse-c actively: yes, sure. Mandatory: no. Thus changing policy in regard to ERX: no (besides, that's poor form, cf Peter Koch's comment). And by all means make the 'more specific' work. Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]