[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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 12:30:13 CET 2016
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote: > >> When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved... > > Pot, kettle, etc. > /Niall It still leaves this question Denis posed unanswered >> How do you propose the NCC does that? Other than abuse-c and a record cleanup. I’m glad to see various people step up and reject abuse-c but is there a workable suggestion? Or anything other than Sascha’s blanket dismissal of the entire aawg? —srs
- 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 ]