4 Jul
2013
4 Jul
'13
11:31 a.m.
On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:53, Gilles Massen wrote:
Well, the mail said 'no objections' - and that's correct. But if the absence of objections is based on a misunderstanding of the implementation (because the restrictions were not spelled out) the consensus is pretty worthless.
+1
As I can obviously only speak for myself, I'd love to hear from others if it was clear to them that an abuse-c could ONLY be linked to an organisation.
This wasn't clear to me either. ATB Niall