Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Bulletproof servers causing mischief on the internet

Take the 45 minutes and listen to John. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly RIPE Vice-Chair -- 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] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

On 21 May 2019, at 16:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: The time you invest in a couple of validations per year, will be *much less* than the time that you *now* invest in unusable abuse contacts. It's not because I correct my abuse contacts that I can even hope save time as

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

On 18 May 2019, at 9:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió: I have an idea. I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address which will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism - like,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

violation of crominal codes. Looking at the supporting arguments however, I fail to see merit in any of them: [ceterum censeo] I share Peter's misgivings. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

are of any which also has a judicial or disciplinary function. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

[anti-abuse-wg] Reliance on rDNS

he unmitigated application of the so-called "rule" mentioned in earlier posts. It is not my intent, and I hope I have not strayed too far in that direction, to mis-use this list as a channel for reporting abuse. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 7 Mar 2016, at 16:57, Randy Bush wrote: >> At least for for 2028 (12 years further on), we can hope that >> pervasive adoption of IPv6 will have made Legacy IPv4 resources >> irrelevant. > > and how is rosenantes? 8-)

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote: The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according to the policy.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:29, denis wrote: Don't make emotive, vague comments like thisexplain with facts. and a little further on: When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved... Pot, kettle, etc. /Niall

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

elled to assert is no more than a private hypothesis of yours, and by no means "self-evident". Best regards, Niall O'Reilly