nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 7 Aug 2018 11:29:43 -0400
In article <627928051.4141.1533644391202.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write:
Unless the e-mail is to the contact on file with the FCC, it isn't an official DMCA take down request, so the request is garbage.
It's not the FCC, it's the copyright office. The law also says that the contact address should be on your web site somewhere. R's, John
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP
Current thread:
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes, (continued)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Rich Kulawiec (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Jérôme Nicolle (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes valdis . kletnieks (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 07)