[anti-abuse-wg] oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"

• Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
• Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Hessler phessler at theapt.org
Thu Sep 7 14:07:59 CEST 2017

STRONG OPPOSITION!

As an operator who has to read abuse-c emails, this is a waste of my
time.  I have real things to do, instead of bothering with this kind of
crap.

Responding to RIPE ping mails does not mean an abuse-c will respond to
emails from non-RIPE entities, nor that a mailbox will keep working
in-between pings.

This is simply busy work, and has no value.

Additionally, the threat that RIPE will deregister for failure to
respond is insulting, vulgar, and obscene.


-- 
Katz' Law:
	Man and nations will act rationally when all other
	possibilities have been exhausted.

• Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
• Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ anti-abuse-wg Archives ]