[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

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

Niall O'Reilly niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Thu Jul 4 11:31:38 CEST 2013

On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:53, Gilles Massen wrote:

> Well, the mail said 'no objections' - and that's correct. But if the
> absence of objections is based on a misunderstanding of the
> implementation (because the restrictions were not spelled out) the
> consensus is pretty worthless.

	+1

> As I can obviously only speak for myself,
> I'd love to hear from others if it was clear to them that an abuse-c
> could ONLY be linked to an organisation.

	This wasn't clear to me either.

	ATB
	Niall


	

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

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

[ db-wg Archives ]