In message
=?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= wrote:
>On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>> [..] IPv4 real estate
>
>IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in
>hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better
>policy
If it weren't effectively property there wouldn't be firms listing large blocks
of v4 space as an asset while going out of business, and there wouldn't be
brokers specializing in acquiring and reselling this space. And yet in the RIR
paperwork this is a simple reassignment of a netblocks
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> [..] IPv4 real estate
IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in
hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better
policy proposals).
Do not do so.
--
Töma
On Sat, 18 May 2019, Sérgio Rocha wrote:
We belong to this group: " Some people are really thankful when they receive
a notice and they understand they have something to fix. :-)"
And we would be more happy if we have sure that all the abuse contacts are
real, at least in RIPE region.
About
We belong to this group: " Some people are really thankful when they receive
a notice and they understand they have something to fix. :-)"
And we would be more happy if we have sure that all the abuse contacts are
real, at least in RIPE region.
Sérgio Rocha
-Original Message-
From:
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:19AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I am sorry but where did I say close down all LIRs?
You wanted an alternative proposal. I did one.
Close down all LIRs = all abuse is stopped.
No, not really. You will
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote:
My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion attempts
and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year.
I've just checked, and only 2.5% bounced. 2018's bounces were around 4.5%.
Did you calculate percentage of deliberate
In message
,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Is all the "internet policing" this group is capable of solely restricted
>to attempted enforcement of usenet era message conventions?
Top posting is yet another a sinister and nefarious plot on the part of
Microsoft to utterly destroy
> On May 17, 2019, at 12:40, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Hi all,
>
> As I read the proposal cutting off bogus LIRs seems to be the goal rather
> than cutting off a legitimate but careless player. There seem to be quite a
> few such given the coming wg meeting has a preso on just this
> On May 17, 2019, at 11:41, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
Hi all,
>
> I'm not sure about the 6 month period (vs. 12 months), and probably some
> details can be improved in further versions, but i do support this proposal,
> which is clearly in the path of
Hi Agree with this policy, all management and membership need more tight
policies.
The relation from Ripe with everyone it's to loosy, my vote to every rule
that bring more responsibility to members.
Like in every country any region, rules are important to avoid abuses. Exist
lots of organizations
That meeting back in December 2010 when a number of wg chairs and such all just
coincidentally happened to be in the room during aob and overtime solely to
propose that Richard Cox be removed as co chair of the wg sort of convinced me
even back then that the answer is actually yes.
--srs
Yes it is. About the sixth offlist reply I've got from you. And yes this is a
top post.
Is all the "internet policing" this group is capable of solely restricted to
attempted enforcement of usenet era message conventions?
--srs
From: Bengt Gördén
Sent:
Gert,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gert Doering
> Sent: Friday 17 May 2019 11:15
> To: Brian Nisbet
> Cc: Gert Doering ; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri,
I would instead suggest that RIPE wind itself up and transfer it's operations
to ARIN or APNIC, if we are about to make broad and sweeping thought experiment
proposals
--srs
From: Gert Doering
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:19AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I am sorry but where did I say close down all LIRs?
You wanted an alternative proposal. I did one.
Close down all LIRs = all abuse is stopped.
You find that silly? Yes, it is. You can draw the conclusions
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:43:46AM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:41:24AM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> > wrote:
> >> My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
> >> attempts and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year.
I am sorry but where did I say close down all LIRs?
--srs
From: Gert Doering
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 4:09 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Gert Doering; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ; Brian Nisbet; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:41:24AM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
attempts and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year.
I've just checked, and only 2.5%
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:37:13AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Anything at all that gets used as a lever to deregister such an LIR and
> reclaim it's IPs will be a public service. If you have any other policy
> proposal that does this adequately I'm all ears. Till then faute de
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:35:16PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet".
You do not understand much about communication and people, do you?
Mailing list are different from web forums, and mailing lists are
different from
Anything at all that gets used as a lever to deregister such an LIR and reclaim
it's IPs will be a public service. If you have any other policy proposal that
does this adequately I'm all ears. Till then faute de mieux..
--srs
From: Gert Doering
Sent: Friday,
Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet".
El 17/5/19 12:16, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC
meeting policy
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:24:51AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> With several countries in the RIPE region that have a major crime and
> corruption problem, no extradition or mlat treaties with the US or Europe and
> some that have used internet crime as a method of waging war in
+1 to Brian's comment, with or without the hat on :-))
Carlos
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Folks,
-Original Message-
From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of Gert
Doering
Sent: Friday 17 May 2019 11:03
And, at least try the minimum amount of politeness in quoting
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC
> meeting policy session to avoid responding in-line to emails about policy
> discussions.
"If you go to Rome, do as the romans do" = "follow
My email client doesn't allow me to do it in a different way (Outlook for Mac).
If somebody is able to help, I'm happy. I can't change my client, for different
and long to explain business reasons.
Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting
policy session
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:45:19AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> If two validations are done per year, I don't think this is
> significant overhead for any resource holder vs the benefits of the
> time saving for the same resource holders that need to use the abuse
>
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:55:14PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Are they is the question
>
> For example - ARIN just reclaimed a large number of IPs from an actor that
> created a large number of shell companies.
> http://m.slashdot.org/story/355802
And how exactly would this
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 09:41:24AM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
> attempts and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year.
> I've just checked, and only 2.5% bounced. 2018's bounces were around 4.5%.
As I read the proposal cutting off bogus LIRs seems to be the goal rather than
cutting off a legitimate but careless player. There seem to be quite a few
such given the coming wg meeting has a preso on just this topic.
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Shane Kerr wrote on 17/05/2019 08:45:
All I can say is that the law is stupid then, and it SHOULD allow the
proposed policy. ?
fundamentally, it shouldn't. Proportionality is a cornerstone of most legal
systems - if you don't have
Shane Kerr wrote on 17/05/2019 08:45:
All I can say is that the law is stupid then, and it SHOULD allow the
proposed policy.
fundamentally, it shouldn't. Proportionality is a cornerstone of most
legal systems - if you don't have proportionality, you end up with
tyranny. The idea of
Hi All,
I'm not sure about the 6 month period (vs. 12 months), and probably some
details can be improved in further versions, but i do support this
proposal, which is clearly in the path of "anti-abuse".
My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
attempts and
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Alex de Joode wrote:
??I beg to differ.
The ripe membership set's the policy;
Ripe enforces the policy;
If a ripe member has it's resources withdrawn due the policy and the
enforcement of the policy, the ripe member can go to court
in The Netherlands (see contact between
Alex,
On 17/05/2019 09.15, Shane Kerr wrote:
I don't think we need to be amateur lawyers for this or any other proposal.
I have been informed that you are an actual lawyer and not an amateur
one. Color me embarrassed!
My sincere apologies.
All I can say is that the law is stupid then, and
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
>
> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to
> the proposer.
Alex,
On 17/05/2019 01.56, Alex de Joode wrote:
On Fri, 17-05-2019 1h 45min,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Hi Nick,
[..]
Anyone failing in repetitive ocassions to comply with policies is
subjected to further NCC scrutiny, including account closure. This
* Marco Schmidt [2019-05-16 14:21]:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.
>
> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:"
> information more often, and introduces a new validation process
But if a policy asking ripe ncc to investigate fraud and withdraw resources
were to be proposed we would again hear the "we are not the internet police"
trope :(
--srs
From: Alex de Joode
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc:
"a case where the resources are withdrawn based only on the fact there was no
reply to the abuse-mailbox validation email"
You should high light the word 'only'.
The ARIN case has nothing to do with -only- not answering the validation mail.
It actually attacks a business model build on
41 matches
Mail list logo
