[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat May 9 03:12:32 CEST 2020
Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types for it? Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases. From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 4:22 AM To: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") > It's ok for consensus to be that a policy proposal be rejected > entirely. but how many times? randy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200509/ef444d5d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]