[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Mon Jan 22 14:56:05 CET 2018
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:48:19 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:42:09PM +0200, ox wrote: > >I have not seen any objections to the process of emailing a alpha > >numeric number to abuse-c and then having that number entered into a > >website (after solving a capcha) > >This would solve many problems as it would mean that the abuse-c > >exists and is functional and not an auto-responder or other bot > > Did my email somehow not make it to the list? I believe I clearly > objected to anything of this sort. And, moreover, the IA clearly > states that the NCC has *no* mandate to prescribe to operators > how they handle abuse email. > > Additionally, the "community" has no mandate to prescribe to the > NCC exactly how to implement a policy - this is a contractual > matter. > okay, but this is not that. nobody is prescribing to anyone how to handle abuse email. ************************************* this is not an abuse complaint ************************************* it is a verification that abuse-c is a functional email address. do you see the difference? so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process - if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an improvement, please do so Sascha? Kind Regards Andre
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]