March 2016 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Hi Job Interesting but I don't think this is for Joe Public who receives spam or phishing emails and wants to complain about them. I can't see your average non techie internet user downloading software to make a complaint. cheersdenis From: Job Snijders <job(a)ntt.net> To: denis <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> Cc: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>; Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie>; andre(a)ox.co.za; RIPE DB WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Monday, 7 March 2016, 21:19 Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:17:00PM +0100, denis wrote: > On 07/03/2016 16:49, Randy Bush wrote: > >>In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address > >>registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about > >>how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people > >>who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to > >>have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating > >>the abuse? > > > >i am not against having an abuse-c: field. i am against making it > >mandatory. all that'll get us is black holes. > > What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that many > network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it optional > and let them leave it blank. > > As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't want > to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as a next > stage tackle these black holes with devnull. there are other ways to handle abuse on both reporting & resolving side. what seems to be the populair way these days is publishing abuse in feeds and subscribing to those feeds, no email involved. example: https://abuse.io/

1 0

2016-01 Discussion Period extended until 5 April 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" has been extended until 5 April 2016. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01 You can review the most recent discussions at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2016-March/date.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 13
by Marilson 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Gentlemen, excuse me but you are discussing the sex of angels. At least we, the victims of abuse, do not need abuse-c or any information about spammers and scammers. All we need is the sp(c)am IP and an honest attitude of the ISPs. This IP is available, but the honest attitude of ISPs is far from satisfactory. With exceptions, of course! For the victim of abuse, know who and where the spammer is, it will only be useful if he is in their area. In this case we do not need Registrars, neither police nor rulers. Using social networks I have joined 150 victims of abuse at the door of a spammer. We no longer receive spam of that person. Regarding the attitude of ISPs with SCAMMER customer, I will give you real numbers, own experience: 1- By reporting with evidence, a scammer, for the first time, 90% of ISPs do not take any action. Note that I am talking about scammers. 2- By reporting with evidence, the same scammer, to the same ISP, for the second time, 50% of ISPs do nothing. This is unacceptable! 3- By reporting with evidence, the same scammer, to the same ISP, for the third time, 20% of ISPs do not take any action and continue hosting their scammer customer or delivering their scam. That's a crime! Conspiracy to practice crime. It is a police matter and they must be arrested. The most significant example of this criminal attitude is Amazonaws.com acting above the law and of its AUP, hypocritically exposed on their website. With one detail: that 20% of criminal ISPs do not bother with the fact that the accusations with evidence, are being copied to spam(at)uce.gov, gmail-abuse(at)google.com, abuse(at)registrar.xxx, lettersmailbox(at)economista.com, support(at)wsj.com, submit.snAXXem0rJTkVXXX(at)spam.spamcop.net, policy-staff(at)icann.org, guardian.readers(at)theguardian.com, krebsonsecurity(at)gmail.com, (at)antiphishing.org or apwg.org, privacy(at)council.bbb.org... Regarding the attitude of ISPs with SPAMMER customer these percentages are even higher. For civil society, privacy security, data available or not, none of that matters. What matters and is sufficient is an honest attitude of the ISPs. Or do you clean the house or the rulers will criminalize your activities pressured by the civil society that is tired of being pestered by email marketing and bandits trying to steal their savings. Thanks Marilson -----Mensagem Original----- From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 8:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 13 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) 2. Re: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (Florian Weimer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 10:54:45 +0000 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> To: "h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com" <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com>, Jeffrey Race <jrace(a)post.harvard.edu> Cc: "pk(a)denic.de" <pk(a)denic.de>, "db-wg(a)ripe.net" <db-wg(a)ripe.net>, "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 Message-ID: <B376F13F-3752-401F-97E4-2182A0FE2192(a)blacknight.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 05/03/2016, 09:53, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> wrote: >Hi > >I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country has to do >with my reasoning or logic. > >The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, >my answer is no, we are not law enforcement and we only do book keeping, >we don't tell people what to do, if they want to be good guy, great, if >they don't care about spam or any abuse so to say, ok, it's their call. Who? A LIR or an assignee? Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now I?d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it then maybe you shouldn?t have it >Making things mandatory with no real enforcing power are just not working. That?s more of a chicken and egg argument. The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues. Of course if there was a way to get abuse contacts to be more responsive then everyone would be happier (or unhappier .. ). > >So make logic simple to understand, if the abuse is serious as crime, you >don't need abuse c to get the right person(law enforcement has much better >way than ripe db), if it is not serious as crime, if the op cares, with or >without abuse c they will have their abuse contact there, and will deal >with it. For ops don't care, with or without abuse c, they still don't >care. The issue isn?t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c people would try to contact whatever contact they could find. > So you can put up an extra line ask people to fill, but I don't think it > makes much difference. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:57:14 +0100 From: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Cc: andre(a)ox.co.za, "Sascha Luck \[ml\]" <dbwg(a)c4inet.net>, db-wg(a)ripe.net, anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 Message-ID: <87si05yyyd.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain * Randy Bush: >> there has to be accurate records for abuse-c > > really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the ncc > resource registry. They can point law enforcement to a more reliable self-service tool, I assume. End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 13 *********************************************

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
by h.lu＠anytimechinese.com 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Hi guys: I think I really should make myself clear here. (Sorry for sending 3 mails in a row as I just realise people are taking to me one by one) I do not against abuse c or support it, I just don't think it will make much difference. That's all I have to say about abuse c. However, I do against the idea "if we not managing the internet the gov will step in and take over". The last thing I would want the community is doing the gov's managing job for them. So that's what my last email about. > On 5 Mar 2016, at 08:32, andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:55:16 +0000 > Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > <snip> >> >> We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really. > [...] > > If you are correct (and imho you are) > > the whole point of book keeping is to have accurate data and records > > so, pick your poison. All POV leads to exactly the same thing: the ncc > needs accurate abuse-c as much as any of the other data.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal
by Marilson 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

Hello I am also impressed and concerned with the old, inopportune and improper posture of the gentlemen Randy Bush and Gert Doering. Denis, it is gratifying to hear someone concerned about the future of the Internet and with the exponential increase in the abuse. Greed, not wanting to plagiarize Gordon Gekko, reigns absolute and moves the wheels of the global economy. The agenda is: cheat as much as you can, just try not to get caught. HSBC and Volkswagen are the portrait of this posture unethical where the end, profit, justifies the means. You all have the opportunity to do the right thing. How do you want to be remembered? Or you start a remediation process of such abuses or will be done by rulers (governments) pressured by the world's population. Thanks Marilson

3 2

Cleanup work for "abuse-mailbox:" in certain ORGANISATION objects, following policy 2011-06
by Tim Bruijnzeels 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

Dear working group, As you know, the RIPE NCC completed the work for the 2011-06 policy on 15 February, and "abuse-c:" is now added to all organisations that hold resources allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC. Going forward we propose to: - Remove "abuse-mailbox:" for all ORGANISATION objects that *have* "abuse-c:" in a one-off operation - Introduce a business rule to prevent adding "abuse-mailbox:" to ORGANISATION objects, urging people to use "abuse-c:" instead Please note that the proposal above does not force anyone to use "abuse-c:", it just enforces that "abuse-c:" is used instead of "abuse-mailbox:". Having both attributes on an ORGANISATION object is extremely confusing, and currently updating "abuse-mailbox:" does not work in the LIR Portal organisation object editor. We therefore believe that the cleanup is needed, and we hope that this will not be controversial. We would like to ask the working group for the mandate to do the cleanup proposed above. Originally the intent was to clean up "abuse-mailbox:" on all objects (except in abuse-c roles) and possibly IRT objects. However, we are fully aware that more controversy exists here. There is a lot of discussion about whether "abuse-c:" can be mandatory for organisations holding legacy resources (2016-01). Questions are being raised about the data model. We are following these discussions with interest and we believe that this part of the originally proposed cleanup should be put on hold until we have a more clear direction from those discussions. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC Database Group

2 1

Biggest problem today: See attached file
by turgut kalfaoğlu 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

As the manager of a busy Linux server, the biggest threat to my users is coming from virus-carrying emails. Unfortunately virus scanners are often unable to keep up with them, and I get several a day. They either appear as an invoice to be paid "see attached .doc file, see attached .pdf file", or as a link "click here to see your detailed telecom invoice". The regular spam is down to a minimum these days, if one uses all available tools, which I am. Regards, Turgut Kalfaoglu turgut(a)trearn.bitnet :)

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
by Gert Doering 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

Hi, On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre(a)ox.co.za wrote: > it is actually very simple: > > any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must > include accurate abuse records. No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated responsibility for that (admin-c / org). abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means required for the function as registry. Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

4 4