On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:43:03AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
...
Sucks when all the free stuff you've been using to make money
gets taken away, doesn't it?
LOL,
Sascha Luck
In message <9d061c1e-2d17-48b1-fc72-3c08026bb...@key-systems.net>,
Volker Greimann wrote:
Even in those
In message ,
Volker Greimann wrote:
>If you buy land, there is a legal requirement to get yourself
>registered. This legal basis is sufficient grounds for data processing
>under the GDPR under Art 6 I c) ("processing is necessary for compliance
>with a legal obligation to which the
In message <20180529190447.gh99...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:43:03AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>
>
>...
>
>Sucks when all the free stuff you've been using to make money
>gets taken away, doesn't it?
>
>LOL,
It is said that he who
In message <9d061c1e-2d17-48b1-fc72-3c08026bb...@key-systems.net>,
Volker Greimann wrote:
>Even in those cases, whois is but one tool that helps identify bad
>actors by means of violating privacy rights of millions.
I am compelled to point out, once again, the fundamentally demented
nature
In message <5f2d3eae-bf59-4e61-b17b-bf45f3df0...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Whois, as everything in the life, has good and bad things.
>
>Against: Privacy invaded. In fact, when you register a new domain and you
>associate a visible email to it, in a matter of hours, you
Folks,
GDPR is a valid subject for this WG. Discussions around how it will affect
things around abuse of the Internet is valid etc. etc.
However let's not get into whose government is better or worse, please.
Thanks,
Brian
Brian Nisbet
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's
In message , Brian Nisbet wrote:
>We understand that you are against the application of GDPR to the ICANN Whois.
>So noted.
>
>However your language below repeatedly goes beyond what I believe is acceptable
>under the RIPE Community Code of Conduct. You are insulting people both
>in broad
On Tue, 29 May 2018 19:43:08 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote:
> As you personally have leveled the charge, I ask you personally Brian,
> what person, specifically, have I insulted? What person,
> specifically, has been the alleged victim of my alleged ad hominum?
>
Well, many people. let me
Wow, the level of narrowmindedness and fearmongering is high with this one.
Crime online will likely not increase due to GDPR. It may be more
difficult to detect and take action against due to the loss of one tool
amongst many, but ultimately that tool was illegal to begin with as it
violated
Brian
Agreed.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
Volker
I don't think your choice of language is particularly helpful or constructive.
In fact I think you're being intentionally inflammatory.
Why don't you tone it down a little?
There's no need to use words like:
"vigilantes" or "rent-a-cops" unless you're simply trying to troll people or
Apologies if I offended anyone.
However I do believe law enforcement itself should be strictly a
government function.
Volker
Am 29.05.2018 um 13:41 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Volker
I don't think your choice of language is particularly helpful or constructive.
In fact I think
It seems to be a very popular meme right along with “we are not the internet
police”. Or maybe that old saw about the internet interpreting censorship as
damage and routing around it.
Like several other popular memes and urban legends variants of this one have
been around over the years so
There is a balanced discussion to be had here but unfortunately it too quickly
dissolves into acrimonious “shouting”. Volker's email expressing one side in a
somewhat antagonistic fashion being a good example of the “shouting".
As things stand at the moment, the interpretations of GDPR and
Abuse has nothing to do with a domain name.
Nobody can abuse anyone armed only with a domain name.
Without using an actual IP number, a domain name can do nothing.
Protecting the privacy of a domain registrant is absolutely correct.
The trouble is that network operators are resistant to
> On 29 May 2018, at 14:28, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
>> Publishing that data was perfectly legal pre-GDPR. It _may_ be legal post
>> GDPR. Until this is tested in court, definitives are just so much posturing.
>> And the
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:50:09PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Would you be able to point to the section of the GDPR which states this?
Admission: I have yet to make it to the end of the 88 pages of the act without
falling asleep.
It derives (also the tenor of NOYB's filing, aiui) from
Please correct me if you think I am wrong:
1.
You cannot send spam without an IP number.
2.
You cannot do any abuse without an IP number.
I can do a whois on any.com or some.eu and have a tech or abuse email
address and WORKING registrar contact information.
I cannot do a whois on ALL ripe
Even in those cases, whois is but one tool that helps identify bad
actors by means of violating privacy rights of millions. There are other
tools, like DNS traces, reviews of hosting infrastructures used, etc.
all of which will continue to be available for the uses you refer to.
And maybe it
But we are not enforcing any laws, I don’t believe in that other “code is law”
urban myth either :)
We as a community are protecting our respective users by blocking phish, spam,
malware etc.
And occasionally we send a heads up to other networks that are hosting or
originating such traffic
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Publishing that data was perfectly legal pre-GDPR. It _may_ be legal post GDPR.
Until this is tested in court, definitives are just so much posturing. And the
argument is likely to be more nuanced anyway. If I want to register a
Whois, as everything in the life, has good and bad things.
Against: Privacy invaded. In fact, when you register a new domain and you
associate a visible email to it, in a matter of hours, you get spam.
Pro: If it is a real email with humans behind, it facilitates the resolution of
abuse
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Simon Forster wrote:
Law enforcement doesn't provide anti-virus tools. Law enforcement doesn't offer secure
transport services for cash and gold. Law enforcement doesn???t provide locks for front doors.
Private companies provide those services. Your
Hi Suresh,
I get that and that aspect of the abuse community is providing a
valuable service. A valuable service that also could be (and now must
be) provided without access to whois data. Effectively, parts of your
community have already been working without whois for years in ccTLDs
where
Andre
1 - yes and no - you need access to an SMTP server.
2 - again - you need access to resources
I agree however that the domain without anything attached to it can't do
anything
The resources need IPs..
Re: RIPE whois - if there are inaccuracies you can report them to RIPE.
Regards
now, one has to look at the reasons for the confusion and lack of
clarity on which resources powers abuse on the Internet
you also have to look at who absolutely dominates email on the planet
there are only two organisations that dominate email on the planet.
these same two organisations have
Jordi,
This is a technical statement, it is not a pov (point of view) - it is a simple
and salient fact:
No abuse on the Internet is possible without an IP number.
In your example:
the mail server = the IP number.
so the abuse originates from the mail server IP number.
the DNS = IP number
OK, let'S ban IP numbers then. Clearly they are evil! ;-)
Am 29.05.2018 um 16:12 schrieb ox:
Jordi,
This is a technical statement, it is not a pov (point of view) - it is a simple
and salient fact:
No abuse on the Internet is possible without an IP number.
In your example:
the mail server
This is another argument often raised, yet it is missing the point of
the legality of these registers. Yes, there are certain public or
non-public registers like the land register (public) or the car
registration register (non-public), but each of these are mandated by
law. If you buy land,
Hi Jordi,
I guess his point is the mail server, to communicate, needs an IP address.
Then, that IP address belongs to a netblock, and should be registered
(also on whois, but on a different database...).
And he is ranting about the lack of abuse contacts related to IP netblocks
--
Volker Greimann wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> that is a common misconception, but sadly untrue.
>
> > As things stand at the moment, the interpretations of GDPR and subsequent
> > actions of some large organisations make it likely that fraud and other
> > types of malpractice, largely aimed at
I am so happy that you are asking this question :)
This is what causes much confusion with people, including experienced
netadmins, sysadmins and many very technically advanced people.
You can use any email address as an example: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Please think about it for a second:
How
Well, we disagree in the definition of abuse maybe?
You can find many definitions of this:
"Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk
messages, which are generally undesired"
So, spam is abuse, and I don't need to know IPs to send spam. The mail server
On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:23:13 +0200
Volker Greimann wrote:
> OK, let'S ban IP numbers then. Clearly they are evil! ;-)
>
one has to look how certain multinationals are using IP numbers in what they
see as a war.
spammers also do this, they send legit email from the same IP number as
they pump
yes, which is why the registrar information on the domain whois are 100%
accurate and all working, valid data.
and no, the resources assigned by the RR, specially the legacy, is not
at all the same thing.
look how much of a battle and uphill struggle it was to even reach consensus
on
35 matches
Mail list logo
