[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Wed Mar 14 15:33:42 CET 2018
Hi, > Op 14 mrt. 2018, om 15:22 heeft Name <phishing at storey.xxx> het volgende geschreven: > > This does not address black hole email addresses, nor does it validate that an email address is an abuse email address. I could put YOUR email address as my abuse contact. Because your email address is valid, it would pass your check? > > And then an individual would have to prove that an email address is not working at all, to complain to RIPE? But your email address does work? > > How is it that you have spent how ever many months on this garbage, and come out with exactly the same position you were in before hand? This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :) Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20180314/0a9634ea/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]