> On 21 Dec 2023, at 20:14, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>
> It’s 2023 and Word is fairly commonly used by a lot of people.
>
>
>
And my dayJ0b blocks them at our inbound firewall.
> What format do you propose be used?
>
As others have suggested ascii text is
> On 22 Feb 2021, at 12:18, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> I think you totally misread his mail. It reads to me as a proposal to help
> you understand the processes used by many providers, not as a sales pitch.
Agreed - it looks like an offer to share data and operational practices.
f
> On 22 May 2019, at 22:38, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Before you all argue for "we need to have more paperwork!" please take
> a step back and explain a) what is wrong with the current validation
> process, and b) why this proposal would improve this.
What Gert said - at the very least these ne
> On 9 Aug 2016, at 10:09, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> For example -
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-59
Which is for a different WG and 2009, not AA nor Address Poilcy where such a
policy would have been made then.
So will Ron step up to write a Policy
> On 7 Nov 2015, at 23:24, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> I only mentioned it because (a) the Wikipedia entry relating to
> this goes into some lengthy... and interesting... discussion of
> the various complexities introduced when third parties are named
> in contracts and also because (b) in my
> On 7 Nov 2015, at 21:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> P.S. By a very strange coincidence, I was recently investigating one
> particular spammed-for web site which, on its Terms and Conditions
> page, made what seemed at the time to be a rather obscure refrence to
> an equally obscure UK law
