are of any which also
has a judicial or disciplinary function.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
olation of crominal codes.
Looking at the supporting arguments however, I fail to see merit in
any of them:
[ceterum censeo]
I share Peter's misgivings.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
On 18 May 2019, at 9:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió:
I have an idea.
I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address
which
will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism
- like,
On 21 May 2019, at 16:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
The time you invest in a couple of validations per year, will be *much
less* than the time that you *now* invest in unusable abuse contacts.
It's not because I correct my abuse contacts that I can even hope save
time as y
ou've done so already,
Take the 45 minutes and listen to John.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
RIPE Vice-Chair
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
compelled to assert is no more than
a private hypothesis of yours, and by no means "self-evident".
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
we say here
> in this country), nor even with a personal perusal of any of the
> contracts at issue.
Thank you for confirming my belief that you've been guessing, and
that your guesses form the basis for your assertion that the "nature
of the contracts in question is [...] s
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:31:40 +,
Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> Mohsen Souissi (AFNIC) asked whether DNS over DNS will ever become a
> full replacement?
I wonder whether this isn't a typo.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:29, denis wrote:
Don't make emotive, vague comments like thisexplain with facts.
and a little further on:
When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to
"abuse-c:". Problem solved...
Pot, kettle, etc.
/Niall
On 7 Mar 2016, at 11:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly
wrote:
When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to
"abuse-c:". Problem solved...
Pot, kettle, etc.
/Niall
It still leaves this question Denis posed unan
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as
THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database
according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in ot
On 7 Mar 2016, at 16:57, Randy Bush wrote:
>> At least for for 2028 (12 years further on), we can hope that
>> pervasive adoption of IPv6 will have made Legacy IPv4 resources
>> irrelevant.
>
> and how is rosenantes?
8-)
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
the so-called
"rule" mentioned in earlier posts.
It is not my intent, and I hope I have not strayed too far in that
direction, to mis-use this list as a channel for reporting abuse.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly
14 matches
Mail list logo
