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

2018-05-04 Thread Name
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)

2018-01-19 Thread Name
"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)]

2018-01-19 Thread Name
"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)

2018-01-19 Thread Name
"what is the process to escalate this "Short of a civil/criminal sanction, nothing.RIPE and the other international equivalents flatly reject a role in policing the internet, on the basis that it would cost them too much money (resulting in the internet being the shit hole that it is today) and

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

2018-01-22 Thread Name
"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)

2018-01-23 Thread Name
"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)

2018-01-24 Thread Name
"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

2018-02-17 Thread Name
pe.net On 2018-02-17 13:25:24 CET, Name wrote: > If they are responsive, then there will be no issue with them validating their email address. > That's a good reason not to implement "security theater" policy. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

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

2018-02-17 Thread Name
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

2018-02-23 Thread Name
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)

2018-01-23 Thread Name
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 & Next Steps

2018-03-12 Thread Name
"we do not believe rough consensus has been reached."Who spoke out against it, and what did they say? I haven't seen anything that says that consensus has not been reached.What does "consensus" look like? Original Message Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 &

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

2018-03-14 Thread Name
to be not working can be always reported to the RIPE NCC with the report form. Original Message Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie> Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 10:31 pm To: Name <phish.

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

2018-03-15 Thread Name
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

2018-03-14 Thread Name
This does not address black hole email addresses, nor does it validate that an email address is an abuse email address. I could put YOUR email address as my abuse contact. Because your email address is valid, it would pass your check? And then an individual would have to prove that an email

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

2018-03-15 Thread Name
i-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie> Date: Thu, March 15, 2018 8:22 pm To: Name <phish...@storey.xxx>, Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Morning,   What we’re discus

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

2018-03-14 Thread Name
"If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid."No it doesn't. How does RIPE loading a system that checks whether a mail server exists even need a change to policy? There is nothing listed in this "policy" that even

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

2018-03-14 Thread Name
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

2018-03-20 Thread Name
"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

2018-03-20 Thread Name
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

2018-03-16 Thread Name
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

2018-03-17 Thread Name
"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

2018-03-06 Thread Name
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] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c

2018-12-03 Thread Name
Perhaps you can use his poorly maintained ABUSE-C contact information to  nevermind. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c From: peter h Date: Mon, December 03, 2018 8:17 pm To: