[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Jan 28 19:25:05 CET 2016
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:18:38PM +0100, Gilles Massen wrote: Dear Gilles > Since the rationale mentions the "better quality of abuse contact data", > I'd like to point out that it is still not possible to have a different > abuse-c for different inetnums, if they belong to the same ORG. The > impossibility to have a "more specific" is the ONLY thing that prevents > me to have accurate abuse contact data for our LEGACY addresses, not the > absence of a specific policy. Let's make a proposal for a DB-WG to deal with that and will see what is the community's point of view for that. Is it ok for You? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]