"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
"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 flagged.Thi
on verifiable 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 i
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
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)"
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 v
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 groups
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, then
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
Pol
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 am
> 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 ca
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: anti-ab
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
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 etc...
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
sha
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" ,
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 arres
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 o
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 (V
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 or
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 (p
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 much sen
e: [anti-abuse-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.g
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
>> 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 be
, Dublin D01 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
hould 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
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: AS4
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] Reporting
ssage - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting
abuse to OVH -- don't bother
From: "Fi Shing"
Date: 2/13/20 3:26 pm
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
All OVH and DigitalOcean abuse reports must be submitted via the abuse
reporting forms on the website, or they won't be ac
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 office.
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 sense.abuse.n
] 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
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, 201
--- Original 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 datab
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. Guilme
36 matches
Mail list logo