[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Thu Mar 3 00:10:33 CET 2016
[ i may be totally misunderstanding things here, but i never bought mandatory abuse-c in the first place ] so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response? i am hesitant to mandate behavior beyond that necessary for the ncc to maintain accurate records of resource 'ownership'. beyond that is me telling someone else how to run their network. i suspect they will listen to their management before they listen to me, and rightly so. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]