Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states

f list, about the evident growth in the use of the internet for abusive purposes as it relates to huge multinationals and nation states? I would like to illustrate what I am asking, with a singular example. the specific brand name should not choose to take any offense, as I could have simply replaced &

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

"You may say I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope some day you'll join usAnd the world will be as one" - John Lennon Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation) From: Chris Hills Date: Fri, January 19,

[anti-abuse-wg] [FWD: Re: [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)]

"IMHO the policy should only check if emails to the abuse contact are delivered, which can bei done with some HELO, MAIL FROM and RCPT TO magic on port 25."Except that firstly, you get idiots who forward abuse complaints to distribution lists, and then shut down email accounts attached to that

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

"Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and alsothen notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also failsthen loss of resource is reasonable."This is too unfair on RIPE and no body (RIPE included) has enough resources to police something that should be the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

"An autoresponder asking people to fill out a webform should not be accepted as a valid solution"Autoresponders/webforms should actually be encouraged, because a stand alone email address means that all a spammer/attacker has to do to is flood that email account with bogus data and the valid

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

"I don't disagree that there are legitimate situations where LIR contracttermination could be justified, but non-compliance with a relativelyminor bureaucratic tickbox operation is not one of them."Providing an operational abuse email inbox, to deal with a complaint about a host that is on a fibre

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder

If they are responsive, then there will be no issue with them validating their email address. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder From: Alexander Isavnin Date: Sat, February 17, 2018 9:02 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net

[anti-abuse-wg] Cybercrime 'pandemic' may have cost the world $600 billion last year

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/cybercrime-pandemic-may-have-cost-the-world-dollar600-billion-last-year/ar-BBJtD1O"The global cost of cybercrime has now reached as much as $600 billion — about 0.8 percent of global GDP — according to a new report."

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

IF email is from = "validat...@ripe.net" THEN deliver email,ELSE, delete/auto-respond/jump through hoops. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation) From: ox Date: Wed, January 24, 2018 4:43

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

What is there to oppose about 2017-02?A completely ineffective policy, that doesn't even need to be a policy, that doesn't solve any of the original stated issues, which does nothing to change the system as is, which does NOTHING to verify abuse attributes, and you're bitching about it?You remind

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps

oes it need a change in policy if it's implemented as is? How does it change a single thing? Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu> Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 11:29 pm To: Name <ph

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

"And an annual checking would ensure that the contacts remain more up-to-date."Yes, an annual checking would do that. This isn't an annual checking. It involves checking if a mail server exists.Mail server exists ≠ update-to-date contactMail server exists ≠ valid abuse mailbox Original

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

eceive them. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu> Date: Tue, March 20, 2018 11:23 pm To: Name <phish...@storey.xxx>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Dear Anonymous Name, > /"And an annual ch

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign supreme, even though this proposal (as it turned out) does absolutely nothing to verify

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

"I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, andthose that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy,and not change their ways."There has already been discussion about cancelling resources of people who don't comply. Firstly, there is nothing in this

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Status of Proposal 2017-02

and when does the outcome become decided? Original Message Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Status of Proposal 2017-02 From: Brian Nisbet Date: Thu, March 01, 2018 1:50 am To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" Colleagues, As you're aware the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] SPAMHAUS SBL team contacts

Try a WHOIS on the spamhaus domain. Original Message Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] SPAMHAUS SBL team contacts From: Milad Afshari Date: Tue, February 12, 2019 6:20 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Hi Folks,I would be happy If you share with me any contacts