[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Sep 25 16:36:59 CEST 2017
herve.clement at orange.com wrote: > To be clear regarding the acceptability of the auto-responder: > > It refers to "If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks > (including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact > attribute will be marked as invalid" So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone: - registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information point to a PO box in Panama or BVI. - sets up an abuse mailbox with an autoresponder, where all emails are thrown into the bin - ignores all attempts at contact regarding abuse queries, whether from LEAs or not If this is the case, what problem is this proposal trying to solve? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]