Re: [anti-abuse-wg] So many idiots. So little time.

Jeroen, ist's hard to distinguish between straight statements and serious questions on one hand and sarcasm, rhetorical questions and strawman arguments on the other hand in written communication, especially when there sometimes seems to be a "mode switch". I'm trying to respond seriously and

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] So many idiots. So little time.

Am 13.08.22 um 14:13 schrieb jer...@hackersbescherming.nl: I would say perfect for that anti abuse training! Training is useful if you want to learn and achieve the training subject matter. Serverius (like many other hosting/colocation providers) is in the business of deflecting trouble from

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] So many idiots. So little time.

Idiots is the wrong choice of word here. Hanlon's Razor does not apply to Serverius. Cheers, Hans-Martin -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] What todo when a registrar doe snot respond to babuse form an IP

Am 22.06.22 um 22:39 schrieb Angel P: Hello there, I have reported to a registrar an IP that has been doing a bunch of wordpress attacks one one of my sites and also using a fake referrer by impersonating itself a www.bing.com What can be done? Basically nothing (but

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] personal data in the RIPE Database

Am 04.06.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette: In message , Hans-Martin Mosner wrote: For resources allocated to legal entities (companies, organizations, etc.) an identification of the organization should be mandatory. Would you agree also that such identification of non-person legal

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] personal data in the RIPE Database

Am 31.05.22 um 15:12 schrieb denis walker: Colleagues I have raised an issue on the DB WG mailing list about publishing in the database the identity of natural persons holding resources. Hi, this mail triggered the expected avalanche of controversial responses, which quickly devolved into

[anti-abuse-wg] Someone on this list has been hacked

Hi folks, looks like someone on this list had their PC and/or mailbox hacked, I got a "reply" to one of my mails trying to make me open some link (probably malware). This stuff is pretty common, but it feels a bit weird that it happened through someone who's active in anti-abuse and presumably

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE NCC Anti-Abuse Training: Next Steps & WG Input!

Am 10.02.22 um 10:25 schrieb Brian Nisbet: Colleagues, Since we last spoke about the proposed training the NCC have been working with various community members to put a draft syllabus in place for further discussion. This is a link to the feedback document for this draft:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c

Am 20.01.22 um 13:37 schrieb Alessandro Vesely: However, it is the ISPs' customers who are the effective users of those IPs. Any complaint, whether reporting spam or botnet activity, can probably be handled more effectively by the people who run the systems connected to a given IP than the

[anti-abuse-wg] Is there any analysis on root causes of mail account break-ins?

Hi folks, I'm trying to understand the root causes and vulnerabilities that lead to hacked mailboxes. Currently, we can handle dynamic IP ranges pretty well, and we have an extensive list of network ranges whose owner are spammers or knowingly accept spammers as customers. So what mainly

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Input request for system on how to approach abuse filtering on Route Servers - bad hosters

Am 18.05.21 um 21:52 schrieb Erik Bais: > > Hi,  > >   > > As I asked during the Connect WG today, there are discussions currently going > on in the Dutch network community to see > if there is a way to get a cleaner feed from routeservers on internet > exchanges. ( by default ) > >   > > As you

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Call For Agenda Items - RIPE82

Am 23.03.21 um 17:53 schrieb Brian Nisbet: > Colleagues, > > RIPE 82 will be taking place somewhere on the Internet from the 17th - 21st > May 2021. > > https://ripe82.ripe.net >

[anti-abuse-wg] Sorry for derailing

Folks, I need to apologize for derailing Cynthia's topic. I had a feeling that this might happen, I should have listened to that feeling and just stop it. I know that we will continue to have different opinions on some matters, such as how to handle abuse reports. As long as we exchange

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] On the abuse handling policy of manitu.net (AS34240)

Am 20.02.21 um 01:39 schrieb Volker Greimann: > It sounds GDPR legal. After all, they are telling you exactly what will > happen with anything that you send there, so > by sending it there in full knowledge, you are essentially consenting to that > processing of your data. That may or may not

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox

Am 18.02.21 um 15:02 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight via anti-abuse-wg: > >   > > I know quite a few companies now use specific forms for handling reports of > different types of reports and have moved > away from email almost entirely, which makes a lot of sense. > >   > At the risk of

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] IPv4 squatting -- Courtesy of AS44050, AS58552

Am 30.11.2020 09:15, schrieb Eileen Morris-Ross via anti-abuse-wg: What the hell is all that crap about As far as I understand (I'm not a routing expert at all) it's about network abuse by hijacking ip ranges without having actual ownership for the given network blocks. An AS registered

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > > However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like currency > these days the description fits - RIPE NCC > can’t not get involved. > ... > NCC owes it to the rest of its membership and the internet community at large > to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Invitation to participate in a survey on internet standards deployment

Am 09.03.20 um 11:56 schrieb Wout de Natris: > > Dear colleagues, > > Following my request to participate in a survey last year,please find > attached to this email the report Setting the > Standard. It finalises an Internet Governance Forum pilot project concerning > the slow deployment of

[anti-abuse-wg] AS24961 myLoc managed IT AG, uadns.com, ledl.net, and non-disclosing registries

AS24961 (RIPE NCC member myLoc managed IT AG) continues to host one persistent spam sender years after years. I have complained to them a number of times, with no noticeable effect. The sender is recognizable by characteristics of their domain names and local parts, and most importantly by

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Am 14.01.20 um 13:10 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette: > [...] > So, my solution is just don't. Let the whole planet vote on whether > they think this provider or that provider are ***heads, and let the > chips fall where they may. > > I'm not saying that even this idea would neessarily be