[anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 00:32:15 CEST 2013
Just a scenario. Which may be totally off the wall, to be sure. --srs (htc one x) On 26-Jun-2013 1:08 AM, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote: > > In message < > CAArzuosEHQ6RYqnGwXWuCbGzuvqwEk9iH-tis948AcU00iL+fA at mail.gmail.com> > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > >Entirely depends on the audit's conclusions. > > > >1. Shell company in romania or the ukraine - "the documents say it is a > >registered company". Stop. > > > >2. Hosting snowshoe spam or malware or whatever. "the justification just > >says "hosting". stop" > > > >:) > > > I'm not grasping whatever point you were making Suresh. Can I ask you > to please take another whack at it? > > Were you saying that the current audit NCC policies would in fact "stop" > an audit (and declare everything acceptable?) upon learning that the > target of the audit is merely a properly registered company? > > > Regards, > rfg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130626/fb3aaf7a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]