[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 ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Mon Mar 7 13:14:36 CET 2016
On 7 Mar 2016, at 11:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > 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? I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered this question adequately already. Best regards, Niall
- 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 ]