Hi Piotr,
>> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a
>> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather
>> have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to
>> much better use of a reporters time.
>
> This argument cou
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 09:59:47PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote:
Dear AA-WG
As a kind of post-mortem comment:
> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a
> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather
> have no abuse-c than an ignored one -
On 26 May 2016, at 10:15, Gilles Massen wrote:
[…] a community that has been granted
extensive exemptions from RIPE policies […]
With respect, I have to disagree with this characterization of the
situation.
Holders of legacy resources have not been _granted_ any exemption
from
RIPE p
Brian,
I beg to differ - the argument is on scope. Even if my comments apply to
abuse-c as a whole, they are still valid for the more narrow legacy
space, and I see no reason to impose a bad idea to more people for the
sake of uniformity. Especially not to a community that has been granted
extensi
Brian,
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the
> community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some
> time ago!
questionable.
> Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in
[brian.nis...@heanet.ie]
Enviado el: jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016 9:43
Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June
2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Gilles,
Thanks for the contribution, but I would
Gilles,
Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the
community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some
time ago!
Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context,
rather than referring to points outside of that scope?
Thanks,
B
Hi,
While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire
Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't
believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite
the contrary.
Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 01:21:05PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The main difference from version 1.0 is that the policy will be
only applied when creating or modifying Legacy Internet Resource
objects in the RIPE Database.
Since the creation of abuse-c means a considerable effort, there
exists a
+1
--srs
> On 25-May-2016, at 9:52 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> wrote:
>
> All internet resources, be they IP addresses or domain names, should have an
> accessible abuse contact. This proposal addresses this gap for legacy IP
> space and should be adopted.
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
All internet resources, be they IP addresses or domain names, should have an
accessible abuse contact. This proposal addresses this gap for legacy IP space
and should be adopted.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
Dear colleagues,
The Discussion Phase for 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource
Holders in the Abuse-c Policy” has been extended until 21 June 2016.
The goal of this proposal is to extend ripe-563, "Abuse Contact
Management in the RIPE Database” to include Legacy Internet Resource
Holde
12 matches
Mail list logo
