[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 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (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 ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Wed May 25 21:59:47 CEST 2016
Hi, While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite the contrary. 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. Make sure that people need to make an informed choice by not providing an abuse-c, but dot not force. So I keep opposing the policy. best, Gilles Massen
- Previous 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)
- 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 ]