[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 ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Mon Mar 7 10:18:39 CET 2016
Not aiming at Michele... On 05/03/16 11:54, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c > people would try to contact whatever contact they could find. The abuse-c as an operational information is certainly useful. The technical implementation is certainly not as useful as it could be (and I side completely with Gert here). But I continue to disapprove the mandatory nature of the abuse-c, it is not helpful, on the edge of counterproductive: the willing will have them anyway. The unwilling will put anything in that passes the syntax test. And as a reporter, I prefer a clear "I don't care" over wasting my time on an ignored report. So advertising the abuse-c actively: yes, sure. Mandatory: no. Thus changing policy in regard to ERX: no (besides, that's poor form, cf Peter Koch's comment). And by all means make the 'more specific' work. Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
- 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 ]