[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 ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 10:57:59 CET 2016
On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> wrote: > > On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that >> is standardized and machine parseable helps. >> >> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might want >> to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a semi >> ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever. > > "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me. I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - such as the remarks. remarks: +---------------------------------------+ remarks: | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks: | information in the role object below. | remarks: +---------------------------------------+
- 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 ]