Hi,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
> clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
> sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public
> owned allocated resources.
That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal ("have
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:29:38 + (UTC)
denis walker wrote:
> Just because that policy didn't force people to enter valid
> information with a threat of deregistration is no reason for anyone
> to enter junk into the database. There has always been a condition of
> membership that people enter and
Hi
I think you misunderstood what I said about the original policy and the design
of "abuse-c:". Before "abuse-c:" there were 4 ways of adding abuse contact
details into the database. The data was spread all over the place and it was
practically impossible to find it with any reliability. The or
On 2017-09-25 18:33, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Yes, I get that it will trigger on that.
>
> What I'm struggling with (I don't want to speak for Nick), is this: what
> is the benefit of getting people to set it to a valid address that no
> human reads, or no human capable of acting, over null or the va
