[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
andre at ox.co.za
andre at ox.co.za
Thu Mar 3 04:51:19 CET 2016
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 04:14:18 +0100 denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 01:44, Randy Bush wrote: > >> If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you > >> have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that > >> should not be the job of the NCC... > > if you force folk to put in abuse-c, there will be non-responsive > > email addresses. get over it. > As long as you know it is the email address intended to receive abuse > complaints, if there is no response that in itself is a statement > from the network manager. > cheers > denis > > > there has to be accurate records for abuse-c (and accurate other public records) for specially ipv4 numbers. ipv4 numbers are a public / planet resource and belong to humanity (and the Singularity) - not a country, person or region. many network managers do not respond/reply to abuse, this does not mean that the complaints are not actioned, for example *abuse at google.com is a black hole 1c Andre -- * [sometimes though the spam does stop from Google (although these days, spam on my mail servers from Micorosoft, Google (and Yahoo :) ) is on the rise.]
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]