Hi,
After reviewing version 2, i'm not very sure about:
1) "Require intervention by the recipient"
Some reports will not require intervention, they work only as a warning
for a possible device infection. Some incident response teams may also
decide not to process certain categories of
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:15:02PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> I don't think it's a matter of authority, but only a matter of
> understanding if the community wants to tighten the requeriments (or
> not).
This part of the community does not want to increase the
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:15:02PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> >There isn't a major problem with the RIPE NCC testing abuse
> >mailboxes on a purely advisory basis, but the RIPE abuse working
> >group has no authority to
>
>
Hi Nick, All,
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Marco Schmidt wrote on 01/10/2019 13:18:
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback
to the proposer.
This version addresses none
Marco Schmidt wrote on 01/10/2019 13:18:
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide
feedback to the proposer.
This version addresses none of the issues I brought up with the previous
version in May:
Thanks for this, Marco!
Colleagues, this is a second Discussion Phase and it gives the WG the
opportunity to comment on the new version. Unsurprisingly it will be on the
agenda for our meeting at RIPE 79.
Thanks,
Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
Brian Nisbet
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG,
Dear colleagues,
A new version of RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
"abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information
more often, and introduces a new validation process that requires input
from resource
Colleagues,
Just to let you all know, we should have a draft agenda by some point tomorrow.
There were a few changes and I didn't want to publish anything not mentioning
2019-03 until the final decision had been made there, because that would have
been jumping the gun.
Thanks,
Brian
