[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Thu Jul 4 11:31:38 CEST 2013
On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:53, Gilles Massen wrote: > Well, the mail said 'no objections' - and that's correct. But if the > absence of objections is based on a misunderstanding of the > implementation (because the restrictions were not spelled out) the > consensus is pretty worthless. +1 > As I can obviously only speak for myself, > I'd love to hear from others if it was clear to them that an abuse-c > could ONLY be linked to an organisation. This wasn't clear to me either. ATB Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]