[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
michele at blacknight.ie
Wed Jul 25 15:32:32 CEST 2012
If they send reports to $random addresses they don't really deserve a response Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 25 Jul 2012, at 13:21, "Thor Kottelin" <thor.kottelin at turvasana.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tobias Knecht >> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:04 PM >> To: Alessandro Vesely; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > >> The point I would >> make >> here is, that there are techniques in place that can separate >> reports >> and that can proof authentication and that abuse departments can or >> should use them > > I agree, especially as many reporters anyhow seem to use every @-containing > string their Whois lookup returns. > > -- > Thor Kottelin > http://www.anta.net/ > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]