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 ]

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Mon Mar 7 16:49:20 CET 2016

> In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address
> registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about
> how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people
> who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to
> have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating
> the abuse?

i am not against having an abuse-c: field.  i am against making it
mandatory.  all that'll get us is black holes.

rady

• 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 ]