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 in

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c

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: anti-abuse-wg@rip

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

- Originale Nachricht - Von: Name <phish...@storey.xxx> Gesendet: 05.05.18 - 07:53 An: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states > And then there is the response of the European Union, which is to make laws that mak

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] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

ven having to receive 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, > /"A

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 M

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 p

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 ab

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 m

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

nti-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 d

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

"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 n

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

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 address

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

ly, does 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: N

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

s out 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 <p

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

"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 & N

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] 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] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder

Making sure admins have a functioning abuse email address has nothing to do with security theater. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder From: Alexander Isavnin Date: Tue, February 20, 2018 3:42 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.

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

e.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

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

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] [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] [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 report

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 resp

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

"If any of our helpdesk engineers would click on a link or attachment in what we receive on the abuse-mailbox ... "Then a text code could be sent via email, allowing manual opening of RIPE website and enter the code in it. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-an

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

"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 sec

[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 dist

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, 2