[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Mon Dec 12 18:03:26 CET 2011
Yes, FAQ#6 is to be removed as well. On 12/Dec/11 17:49, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Instead of all that I'd focus on this little nugget from the faq. > Which was, is and will remain central to why this wg was set up in the > first place. > > ________ > > Why are there no contact details or incorrect contact details for > reporting spam email listed in the RIPE Database for the IP address I > searched on? → > > The records in the Regional Internet Registries' (RIR) databases are > entered and maintained by the organisations that receive IP addresses > from each RIR. The RIRs do not check the accuracy of any of the > records in the database or make any changes to the data maintained by > these organisations. The RIPE NCC has no power to update any of these > records. > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: >> That would be fine too. It's far better not to have a "Hacking & >> Spamming" section [1] in the FAQ than having wrong entries. Is it >> possible to remove it? >> >> [1] http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-hacking-spamming >> >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]