Hi all,
Agreed that a yearly email ping-pong is not really a good verification
of abuse contact address. It's trivial to let RIPE NCC mails through
and throw away the rest.
But, one might ask, what's the point of a database if the data is not
reliable? What's the point of all that contact info if
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:54:04 +0100
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> >The lack of reliable accurate and validated information in the
> >database negatively impacts legitimate uses of the RIPE Database,
> >including:
> An *email adress* that doesn't reply once a year does NOT equate
> to a "lack of rel
idence of bouncing emails/faxes, by waiting for RIPE NCC to contact admin. Then waiting for the admin to decide whether they want to update the entry?
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02
Validates Database Attributes
From: "Sasc
There are many points to address here, but from the point of view of the
PDP I will address two.
First off, this policy has been raised in the Anti-Abuse Working Group.
This has been agreed between the relevant WG Chairs. While obviously
people are free to discuss it wherever they want, only comme
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:54:04PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as
> a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects
> every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the
> NCC provides services, the
All,
I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as
a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects
every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the
NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better
venue. For another, given the "popul
