[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 09:35:22 CET 2016
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:25:50 +0900 Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: <snip> > where you define responsibility. the ncc is not a regulator, it is a > coordinator. if you want to be told how to run your network by weenie > vigilantes, go to arin. > randy > whahahaha I think the take away here is that abuse-c should contain accurate data. What is the point if that any/all of the data could be fake or is empty? Who decides what/which data fields is/are relevant/important and could be fake/non existent etc? How/if/or/whatever the specific receiver of the data responds (/dev/null - etc) is perfectly up to that network...
- 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 ]