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 12:30:13 CET 2016

On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:
> 
>> When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved...
> 
> Pot, kettle, etc.
> /Niall

It still leaves this question Denis posed unanswered

>> How do you propose the NCC does that? 

Other than abuse-c and a record cleanup.   

I’m glad to see various people step up and reject abuse-c but is there a workable suggestion?   Or anything other than Sascha’s blanket dismissal of the entire aawg?

—srs

• 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 ]