Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24961 myLoc managed IT AG, uadns.com, ledl.net, and non-disclosing registries

Upon determining the upstream peers of AS24961, complain to those upstream peers: https://bgp.he.net/AS24961#_graph4 and ask them to provide the contract between themselves and AS24961 so you can find which section of the contract is violated, then complaint to the upstream peer head

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting abuse to OVH -- don't bother

All OVH and DigitalOcean abuse reports must be submitted via the abuse reporting forms on the website, or they won't be actioned: https://www.ovh.com/world/abuse/ https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/abuse/ - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg]

[anti-abuse-wg] AS48666 MAROSNET

Regarding AS48666 MAROSNET Telecommunication Company LLC, Phishing URL: http://barrierfenceco[.]xyz/upd/ IP: 178.159.36.182 Phishing URL: https://abbahaircareproducts[.]xyz/gsodjif/index.php IP: 91.234.99.117 route: 91.234.99.0/24 descr: Client's network descr: Russia, Moscow origin:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct

should move a motion on this group that the group be renamed to : "Anti-Anti-abuse Working Group" - Original Message - Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" Date: 1/20/20 8:19 pm To: "Fi Shing" , "an

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct

01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct

>> but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Your email presumes that an "ombudsman" model would resolve an issue. If a person has dedicated themselves to controlling a 200,000 strong botnet and sending spam emails through unauthorised access etc. what is sending them a fancy piece of paper or an email "asking them to be nice" going to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

buse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: 1/16/20 11:47 am To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" In message <20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@ email19.asia.godaddy.com

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

correction: year 2020* - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Fi Shing" Date: 1/16/20 10:03 am To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" Sergio, that would make too m

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Sergio, that would make too much sense. This mailing list is not only not even considering what you have said, but they are trying to remove the requirement of a network operator to even receive emails about complaints at all. Pathetic. It's the year 2019, and these "people" on this list

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

That is the most stupid thing i've read on this list. What little protection the world has from spammers and all manner of criminals, and you still think it's too much that they even so much as have to check their email account. Which criminal is paying you to say this nonsense, because no

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Well the operators are already free to decide if and when they respond to abuse reports. But this farcical system should not be legitimised by weak imbeciles such as those on this list. - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

I agree, perhaps these internet companies would be happy if it took 15 days for each credit card payment to take place between that company and the customer when a new customer uses their services? - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

You're suggesting that RIR should have reasonable oversight of internet resources? That would make too much sense! In the mean time, here's a brick wall for you to hit your head against: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/images/BrickWall.jpg In reality, the RIR (and ICANN) should be

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Massive prefix theft in AFRINIC - attributed to an insider

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/12/the-great-50m-african-ip-address-heist/ - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Massive prefix theft in AFRINIC - attributed to an insider From: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" Date: 12/6/19 1:14 am To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian"

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Orange contact wanted

orangegroup.pressoffice at orange.com soc at orange.com - Original Message - Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Orange contact wanted From: 'Ronald F. Guilmette' Date: 10/15/19 5:11 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Do any of you folks happen to have a contact at Orange that you could

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Ok, so let me understand: Requiring resource holders to deal with criminals could lead to "unacceptable liability risks" But putting up with their crimes using RIPE infrastructure, including the millions of dollars worth of damage and financial consequences from spam, botnets, etc etc

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists

The only organisation that is in a prime position to implement any meaningful blacklist is a RIR like RIPE itself. Anything less than RIR level blacklisting is what is known as "whac a mole" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole But, as it comes down to time and money, the likes of which

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

It is not for RIPE to abandon a policy proposal simply because a resource holder is too cheap to implement it. - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Neil McRae" Date: 5/31/19 12:05 am To:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

> This is fully sufficient to notice technical brokenness. No it isn't for the reasons previously said by others: 1) if i put your email address as the abuse contact for my resource, the system would make it as "valid", 2) sometimes an address can be broken, even in ways that the sender

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Off-List Responses

and if someone receives one of these abusive emails, lets hope they don't have to refer to the abuse contact information in the RIPE database to complain to the ISP. - Original Message - Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Off-List Responses From: "Brian Nisbet" Date: 5/23/19 12:35

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

This "proportionality" test you speak of, has as much relevance to the regulating of internet resources, as "freedom of speech" does to regulating internet forum membership (no relevance at all). - Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions

The twitter example is not advertising a product or service. It is conveying information about a product/service that the person has already hired. If twitter sends unsolicited emails to someone when they have not requested that service, or have indicated they no longer want the service,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

What absolute crap. Why is that every time something resembling common sense enters this group, there are these people who insist on using slippery slop fallacy?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeIt wouldn't half surprise me if people like this "randy bush" are motivated by criminal

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] telia.lt: Ignoring abuse complaints (?)

Select "cyber crimes" Original Message Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] telia.lt: Ignoring abuse complaints (?) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, April 07, 2019 6:05 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net It will be wonderful when the RIPE NCC people are able to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] I support 2019-03

See at the bottom of the website:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] I support 2019-03 From: Isabel Strijland Date: Wed, April 03, 2019 5:13 am To: "TRAILL Neville (RIC-US)"

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Webzilla

There is no incentive for a corporation to remove an abuser if the abuser is a paying customer.There is also no incentive for RIR to create any sort of oversight, if that oversight requires investment.Hence, the shit fight known as "the internet" that we have today. Original Message

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse

erifiable facts and not on claims or fear. Best Serge On 15/03/2019 13:41, Fi Shing wrote: > /"And no, You are also wrong: Opera does not upload your visited URL's > to a third party server."/ > > If opera (like chrome, edge or firefox) check the URL to see if it is &g

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse

"And no, You are also wrong: Opera does not upload your visited URL's to a third party server."If opera (like chrome, edge or firefox) check the URL to see if it is "dangerous" (a phishing URL etc) then that is logged on their end, when it checks the database to see if the link has been

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse

"it is not forced upon them."If the user doesn't ask for it, it is forced upon them.How many users ask for it, by the way? Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Google Privacy Abuse From: Esa Laitinen Date: Thu, March 14, 2019 7:53 pm To: ac

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Why can't it be both?12.5% annual fee incurred daily, to a maximum of 7 days, with resources being decommissioned if the abuse contact is not updated within that time. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: "Ronald F.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

al Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> Date: Fri, March 08, 2019 9:40 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Fi Shing, I'm sure verifying the delivery of 70k e-mails (or however many is in the database) can be don

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

If it takes more than a week to verify your entire database, there is the first sign that something is wrong with your system. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: Marco Schmidt Date: Thu, March 07,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification_of_abuse_contact_addresse s ?

] Verification_of_abuse_contact_addresse s ? From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <r...@tristatelogic.com> Date: Wed, March 06, 2019 7:47 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net In message <20190305042821.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.4d026bdf0f@email19.godaddy.com>, "Fi Shing&q

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Yes, the verification mechanism they chose to implement was a flop, with no input required from address owners.In reality, it should be "verify your email address by clicking this link once a week or your resources are decommissioned within 24 hours" but alas, that would make too much