[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Tue Jul 5 14:52:21 CEST 2016
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 09:59:47PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote: Dear AA-WG As a kind of post-mortem comment: > Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a > checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather > have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to > much better use of a reporters time. This argument could be easily extended by making it more general: forcing people to add any contact including e-mail or phone number could lead to kind of garbage. Yet, noone oppose to have ORGANISATION, ROLE and PERSON objects in the database. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]