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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 10:57:59 CET 2016
On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> wrote: > > On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that >> is standardized and machine parseable helps. >> >> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might want >> to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a semi >> ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever. > > "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me. I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - such as the remarks. remarks: +---------------------------------------+ remarks: | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks: | information in the role object below. | remarks: +---------------------------------------+
- 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 ]