[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 07:25:50 CET 2016
>> 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? > > The RIPE Database is full of email addresses. If I don't know which one > is intended to receive abuse complaints by responsible network managers > would you prefer I spam every email address I can find? That was the > previous behaviour before we introduced abuse-c. if the LIR does not want your shotgun blast, they can publish and abuse-c: and maybe you will use it instead. or maybe you won't. >> 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. > > No it is telling someone to manage their networks in a responsible > manner. where you define responsibility. the ncc is not a regulator, it is a coordinator. if you want to be told how to run your network by weenie vigilantes, go to arin. 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 ]