Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:41:50 -0700 Randy Bush wrote: > plonk so, we are now degraded to single slang derogatory terms... as you are reply to me and the list, I am assuming that I am the 'plonker' well, at least it is original... I have been called many things, but never had a plonk, thank you for that :) btw - I do not care to be popular, or liked... or what people think of me, I do not have any current 'social media' and frankly, maybe I am a bit of a plonk, truth be told I am probably a schmuck, so this is fair comment... You actually telling me what you think of me though, says a lot more about you, than it does about me... Andre
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
plonk
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
The email below is in direct and flagrant disregard of what you wrote yourself as you are attempting to expose my identity and posting about me personally, in this WG. You have crossed a line and that after the chairs replied to this thread. You, yourself, wrote this: > I have just been reviewing the RIPE Code of Conduct for mailing > lists, and specifically these sections: > > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-conduct > > RIPE community members should not spam mailing lists, post > others' personal information, register multiple accounts to avoid > moderation or mislead participants, impersonate others, or make > threats. Overt marketing or promotional activities are discouraged. > > Chairs are responsible for facilitating and moderating the RIPE > community's discussions. At times they may direct an individual > to cease a certain type of behaviour. Chairs have the authority to > moderate or ban disruptive community members if they decide this > is necessary. I have read your "expose" of myself and; a simple https://bing.com search on my email address displays my surname in the first page results Have you tried using other search engines? Then, I have been posting to mailing lists since around 1987... If your long research into my over 30 years of posts results in only the piddly few objections you have about what I have said, for example that it is possible to not receive spam, , I have said the very same thing in this WG as well and in fact as little as a week or two ago in reply to one of your email spam complaints... As you said (and everyone in this group already knows) I am not so tolerant if ignorance. More so if the ignorant person is also a bully, like for example yourself. I am also still a member of many mailings lists including Philladelphia "Lunix" User's Group (PLUG) and yes, I did correct ignorant postings that EU TLD's must just be blanket blocked (for example .me) - as that is ignorant Ignorant people posting to blanket drop all incoming email from .ru or .me or other TLD's is just plain stupid or ignorant as this will not prevent or stop spam or abuse. And, yes, this includes blanket blocking .xyz or any other TLD. The fact that you are commenting about that and posting this here in this group as some sort of derogatory comment about myself, is indicative of your desperation to paint me as some sort of villain. yet, I am only an honest human being and I believe in total honesty with myself. If you lie to yourself, you are lost and my truth is exactly that: my truth. You lie to yourself, if you were honest, you would know that this is the truth: You are a bully. and it seems you are not a nice or decent human being. Then, hosting business, yes, I am involved in many hosting businesses, yes, I provide bulk email services for Newsletters, Notifications, Invoices, Statements and many other reasons. So what? But, you probably already researched my 'known' IP numbers and resources and you know already that I do not transmit any spam. So, at the end of your exposure of my personal information, in this WG What is your point? That people who provide routing, hosting services or Internet services may not be on mailing lists? I must be honest, I thought some of your research etc was valuable in the past and you have changed my opinion as your research is biased and useless as it is empty and devoid of value. You are a tin can and an empty tin can at that. Have you noticed that I have not said a single thing about your identity? (and, truth be told, you have a skeleton or two...) Andre
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
In message , Brian Nisbet wrote: >This is an open mailing list for the RIPE Anti-Abuse Working Group where a >variety of matters, including policy, are discussed. > >It is not, nor hopefully will it ever be, a closed list with vetting etc. Brian's open-mindedness is heartwarnming, however if Scott Richter were to one day wander in here, using a mysterious alias and posting from a domain that has nothing that could be seriously called a web site, then my hope would be that someone, at least, would cry foul. And if no one else did, than I most certainly would. I don't like sock puppets, whether they be Russians trying to influence elections, covertly, or stealthy South African providers of bulk email services. If there are "ringers" being sent in, here or elsewhere, with the goal of influencing discussions without disclosing their actual interests, then that's quite clearly a violation of the RIPE Code of Conduct, as well as an affront to everyone here. Since Brian is apparently perfectly OK with having exactly such sock puppets around, it now falls to me to make plain the actual business interests of our resident troll, Mr. Andre. It is only a very short set of steps, starting from the domain main.me, and its WHOIS history, as provided by the whoxy.com web site, to find out, despite his/her/its various efforts to prevent it, that our Mr. Andre is directly and irrefutably associated with (and presumably here representing) the following commercial enterprise. This commercial enterprise, as you can all see, offers bulk emailing services: https://nkosi.co.za/ It's not at all clear from the minimalist description of the services offered which IP addresses or domain names are being used for these bulk emailing services. But given that Mr. Andre chastized me, just recently, for my purported failure to "move packets in the RIPE region" I think that it is a safe bet that he is doing so himself, and perhaps even from the network of Hetzner, a network which he has held himself up to be an authority on. (How did he come to believe that he knew so much about Hetzner unless he was either a Hetzner customer or a Hetzner supplier?) I think that the members should take these facts into consideration when evaluating the opinions of our Mr. Andre. I am compelled to point out also Mr. Andre's own published written opinions on the proper definition of spam. Mr. Andre's preferred definition appears to allow for "one time" invitations to be blasted to everyone in the universe. Nonetheless, in Mr. Andre's considered opinion, "Email Spam is not the same as Spam Abuse" and a "... one time request should not be considered spam abuse.": https://ascams.com/email-marketing/ Leaving aside Mr. Andre's opinions regarding the proper definition of the term "spam", I am compelled also to point out that this mailing list is by no means the first one that he has trolled and disrupted. In April of 2016, he also injected himself into the Linux Autralia "linuix-aus" mailing list, where he proceeded to inform the participants that he had invented the "Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem" (FUSSP - see https://www.dmuth.org/fussp/) and that he would be more than happy to share it with Linux Australia if they would only allow him to plug his magical and wonderous black box spam filter into Linux Autralia's email infrastructure: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2016-April/thread.html For some reason, the various fans of open source software on that mailing list were less than enthused about the proposed closed-source "ultimate solution" their spam problems, and thus, Mr. Andre and his proposal and his mysterious black box "solution" were quite appropriately derided, laughed at, and encouraged to go elsewhere. (Mr. Andre, of course asserted that anyone and everyone who didn't immediately buy into his miraculous new anti-spam invention were quite certainly "bullies".) After that, Mr. Andre either was forcably ejected from that mailing list or else he himself elected to quitely slink off, never to be heard from again ... until some months later when he resurfaced, in October 2016, of all places, on the mailing lists of the Philladelphia Lunix User's Group (PLUG) where he took it upon himself to correct the ill-informed views of every member there who thought that it might be time to start blacklisting some entire highly spam-ridden TLDs. It's not really clear what personal interest our Mr. Andre might have, or might have had, back in 2016, in preserving the unfettered ability to send email from such sterling TLD's as .XYZ, but he obviously had a burning interest in this one issue, and spent considerable time explaining to numerous other mailing list participants, ad nauseum, exactly why and how they were all stupid and "bullies" if they did not elect to agree with his views on this issue: http://lists.netisland.net/archives/plug/plug-2016-10/maillist.html Lastly as some of you may
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] standard for abuse reporting (was: VoIP)
Hi all, To avoid unnecessary noise in the list, I think we should handle this in pvt. At the moment, I've got emails from Andre, Angel and Jan about this. I will try to work during this weekend in investigating if there is already an IETF WG that may be a fit for this work, or alternatively will discuss with the IESG about a BoF for it. ASAP I've a clear view on this, I will inform all those interested, maybe is also appropriate then a short "summary" message in this list. Regards, Jordi El 25/4/19 18:12, "Ángel González Berdasco" escribió: On 25-04-2019 16:45 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I will rather prefer an IETF standard for abuse reporting ... already thought about starting it several times ... sooner or later I will write down something, so may be some other people interested to co-author? > > Regards, > Jordi Hello Jordi I would also be interested in having a standard for reporting abuses. There is X-ARF but it isn't able to encode certain information, such as multiple log entries for the same incident, or the only way to do so would be extremely verbose, to the point of being impractical if the recipient is not a bot. Best regards -- INCIBE-CERT - CERT of the Spanish National Cybersecurity Institute https://www.incibe-cert.es/ PGP Keys: https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/what-is-incibe-cert/pgp-public-keys INCIBE-CERT is the Spanish National CSIRT designated for citizens, private law entities, other entities not included in the subjective scope of application of the "Ley 40/2015, de 1 de octubre, de Régimen Jurídico del Sector Público", as well as digital service providers, operators of essential services and critical operators under the terms of the "Real Decreto-ley 12/2018, de 7 de septiembre, de seguridad de las redes y sistemas de información" that transposes the Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union. Disclaimer: This message may contain confidential information, within the framework of the corporate Security Management System.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this message without forwarding or retaining a copy, since any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited by law. ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
Colleagues, This is an open mailing list for the RIPE Anti-Abuse Working Group where a variety of matters, including policy, are discussed. It is not, nor hopefully will it ever be, a closed list with vetting etc. There are lists like that out there, they serve a very useful purpose, but this list is not them. Like all RIPE mailing lists it is as open as possible and will remain so. The Code of Conduct is not there to be used as a stick. It is there to welcome, to set certain norms of behaviour and, hopefully, to support useful discussion across RIPE mailing lists and meetings. To be very clear, we do not believe anyone in this conversation has been misleading or impersonating anyone. We believe there are differences of opinion, possibly even very deep ones, but, barring the uncivil modes of discourse, nothing to trouble the Code of Conduct. We would ask both of you, and all members of this list, to treat each other with civility, to discuss the technical or policy merits of any discussion and to assume good intent from others in all things. What any member of the list does in direct mail between the themselves is up to them, of course. However we would hope for a world in which there is as much civility as possible. All of the Co-Chairs serve at the pleasure of the Working Group. If anyone here feels that one or more of us are not chairing it in an appropriate fashion then the procedure for the removal of a Co-Chair is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse/anti-abuse-wg-chair-selection-process We consider both Andre & Ronald to be members of this list and, barring future events, have no intention of removing either of you. We consider this matter to be closed at this point and we hope the list can return to the ongoing discussions. In a civil manner. If anyone wishes to discuss this with the WG Chairs directly, please email aa-wg-ch...@ripe.net Thanks, Alireza, Brian & Tobias Co-Chairs, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -Original Message- > From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of ac > Sent: Friday 26 April 2019 05:51 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:41:20 -0700 > "Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote: > > > > > Mr. Chairman, I ask you to summarily eject the member in question from > > the mailing list with clear instructions not to return and not to try > > to do so via the ruse of yet additional sock puppet fradulent > > identities. I ask you to do so in accordance with your clear > > authority and responsibility under the RIPE Code of Conduct, which is, > > I think, not at all ambiguous on this point. You cannot, I think, > > merely stand by and allow arbitrary actors with hidden agendas and > > fradulent identities to infiltrate and repeatedly disrupt and thwart > > this Working Group, or this mailing list, whether via repeated > > off-topic rantings or via other artificial means. To do so would be a > > serious abrogation of your responsibilities as Chair of this WG, and > > one which I and others might reasonably feel duty bound to bring to > > the attention of other and higher RIPE authorities. > > > > I await the Chair's response and the Chair's appropriate action. > > > > So, if you do not get your way, me being ejected, then you are threatening > the Chair? > > All in the same post. > > You are indeed an arrogant and ignorant bully. > > And, you are the disruption. You have carefully crafted an identity over a > decade or more, yet, even after looking carefully, I cannot see that you are > pushing packets in RIPE. I also cannot see you anywhere among my own > colleagues and I therefore do not understand what you are doing in this WG, > except to cause disruption, division and spread FUD. > > Your behavior even in this thread: > > 1. You post on a website (links included in your original post) clearly states > that Hetzner cannot investigate without you agreeing that they send the > email headers to the service provider > > You claim that this idea is the worst idea since "This is probably the best > European idea since the one about invading Russia in Winter." > > 2. When I point out that you are technically incorrect or ignorant - as the > Hetzner response is completely true, ethical and correct and YOU are wrong > > You start attacking me, with us now here where you are threatening that if I > am not ejected from this WG you " I and others might reasonably feel duty > bound to bring to the attention of other and higher RIPE authorities." > > Your disruptive, arrogant and bully behavior is cause for you to be ejected > from this WG > > Andre > > > > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Policy Proposal 2019-03 Update
Carlos (and Randy, and Sara), I misspoke somewhat earlier. Yes, the Co-Chairs and the NCC Policy Officer have memory, but it is during the Review Phase that a measure of consensus is gathered and this is especially important when a new draft is issued. So I would ask, after the new draft is sent out (real soon now) and indeed after the NCC Impact Analysis in May, that those who have expressed opinions before either restate or state new opinions as much as possible. If this is "the new draft does not address my concerns and they still stand" then that is fine. Obviously the more detail the better. Similarly expressions of support can be restated, but as mentioned, many times, it's not a vote, it's a discussion to gauge consensus. As to your specific point, Sara, when the Co-Chairs work to declare consensus or lack thereof we will (with the wonderful support of Marco), attempt to lay out the various arguments, broadly who said what and why we're saying what we're saying. This is a non-trivial piece of work and it is properly done at that point. Of course the WG can disagree with that determination based on the discussions and the evidence presented. In regards to the difference between the two drafts of the proposal, when v2.0 is published, you will be able to compare here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03 I hope this helps, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -Original Message- > From: Carlos Friaças > Sent: Friday 26 April 2019 09:50 > To: Brian Nisbet > Cc: Randy Bush ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Policy Proposal 2019-03 Update > > > Hi Brian, All, > > This is a doubt i have about the PDP: > > If concerns are addressed within a new text version, aren't people that have > opposed the previous version required to state if they agree or not that their > concerns were addressed...? > > If those opposing remain silent the default interpretation will be that they > are still opposing the proposal, even if the text they have opposed to is not > there anymore? > > Can you please clarify? > > Thanks, > Carlos > > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > (...) > >> > >> one. can we assume that the co-chairs and marco have memory, or do > >> we all need to restate our views, maybe even after reading a new > version? > > > > Yes, you can assume this. > > > > I mean, we would, of course, strongly suggest that people read the new > version, as we're sure you all will, and we're sure the authors would > appreciate knowing if this version is better or worse, from the point of view > of the members of the WG, but yes, we have memory. > > > > Obviously if we reach a Concluding Phase and the Co-Chairs determination > is other than what any member believes it should be, there are further > opportunities to comment at that point. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brian > > Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG > > > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Policy Proposal 2019-03 Update
Hi Brian, All, This is a doubt i have about the PDP: If concerns are addressed within a new text version, aren't people that have opposed the previous version required to state if they agree or not that their concerns were addressed...? If those opposing remain silent the default interpretation will be that they are still opposing the proposal, even if the text they have opposed to is not there anymore? Can you please clarify? Thanks, Carlos On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Brian Nisbet wrote: (...) one. can we assume that the co-chairs and marco have memory, or do we all need to restate our views, maybe even after reading a new version? Yes, you can assume this. I mean, we would, of course, strongly suggest that people read the new version, as we're sure you all will, and we're sure the authors would appreciate knowing if this version is better or worse, from the point of view of the members of the WG, but yes, we have memory. Obviously if we reach a Concluding Phase and the Co-Chairs determination is other than what any member believes it should be, there are further opportunities to comment at that point. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
[anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: Policy Proposal 2019-03 Update
Hi all, Thanks Randy for bringing this up, I second with a +1! :) I also add one small request. The mailing list has gone left and right and up and down in this period, with some frankly off-centred side discussions, so much so that I feel I am a bit lost and I would really appreciate from the Chairs and Marco a bit of a recap, status quo, changes proposed for the new version against the old, and main contentious points in this whole confusion. Kind regards, Sara Marcolla Europol - O3 European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Eisenhowerlaan 73, 2517 KK The Hague, The Netherlands www.europol.europa.eu -Original Message- > As always, please let me know if you have any questions. one. can we assume that the co-chairs and marco have memory, or do we all need to restate our views, maybe even after reading a new version? randy *** DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ***
