Re: [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?

Hi Andre I thought the IRT object (Incident Response Team) existed for large scale DDOS attack situations? One of the reasons for creating the "abuse-c:" attribute was because the IRT object was being hijacked for the 'less serious' complaints. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG From: ox To:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?

Hal 100% agreed. If the emergency contact is made public it’ll become the default and will be rendered useless. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers?

Sorry didn't cc in the list, Regards, Hal Hal ponton 31 March 2017 at 09:53 Andre, The issue I see with two contacts (emergency and standard) is that everyone will email the emergency contact. I fully agree that the response required for 1 spam email vs 1 email