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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] AS12679 -- 206.195.224.0/19
by Ronald F. Guilmette 29 Jan '20

29 Jan '20

In message <CACWOCC-=kRCxGMO7sodDBWXM9o9kFbdeKW+RK9B1Tihf7cWDOA(a)mail.gmail.com>, Job Snijders <job(a)instituut.net> wrote: >All snide aside, did you report this prefix=E2=80=99s current state to ARIN > through >their fraud form? If not, I'm happy to do so. Negative. I did not do so and I shall not do so. Like all of the RIRs, ARIN's forms and their procedures for dealing with these kinds of issues are, by intent, black holes. I give them the product of my hard work and my diligent effort and research and what do I get back? Do I get a bug bounty? No. Do I get a 10% finders fee for finding the facts that allow some block to be returned to its rightful (legacy) owner or to the RIR free pool? No. Do I get any kind of reward whatsoever? No. Do I at least get a courtesy follow-up after a certain period of time has elapsed, telling me whether they think I am right or wrong? NO! I don't get squat! I don't get either a confirmation, or a rebuttal. In fact I don't get anything at all. I don't even get a polite thank you. But let's just forget about that. Do you really think that me filling some bloody stupid form is really going to chage the process -or- the outcomes? Do you seriously think that YOU filling out the form will have any better effect? If so, I'm going to have to ask you to defend that belief in light of the known facts. Do you really think that ARIN is utterly ignorant about this, even though I got an on-the-record ``no comment'' comment directly from John Curran about it before I even posted it? https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-August/102791.html If not, then how do you explain the fact that after 5 months ARIN hasn't lifted a finger to do a damn thing about it? Looking forward to you explaining this to me Job. I'm all ears. Regards, rfg P.S. I don't need to seek out any web forms or any RIR if I want to experience first-hand this level of lethargic and studied inaction. As I like to tell people, if I ever want to experience this kind of utter lack of productive activity... well... I have relatives for that!

2 3

The curious case of 159.174.0.0/16
by Ronald F. Guilmette 29 Jan '20

29 Jan '20

Just posted: https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2020-January/105672.html

1 0

AS12679 -- 206.195.224.0/19
by Ronald F. Guilmette 27 Jan '20

27 Jan '20

Thrift Drug, Inc. of Pennsylvania was bought out in October, 1996 by the Rite Aid pharmacy chain (US): https://www.riteaid.com/corporate/news/-/pressreleases/news-room/1996/rite-… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift_Drug https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_pa/2002644 Unfortunately, the parent company, Rite Aid, never got the memo to tell that that Thrify Drug, Inc owned the legacy IPv4 block 206.195.224.0/19. The results were predictable. This /19 has been repeatedly squatted on in recent years, as shown by RIPEstat: https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-history#w.resource=206.195.224.1 2016-08-15 AS42861 RU Foton Telecom, CJSC Network Operation Centre 2017-12-08 AS65075 -- {{reserved ASN}} 2018-03-26 AS28191 BR Jupiter Telecomunicacoes e Informatica Ltda 2019-08-24 AS20473 US Choopa, LLC 2019-10-11 AS12679 RU Iceberg Telecom Ltd. The 206.195.224.0/19 block is currently being squatted on by AS12679, Iceburg Telecom (Moscow). It appears that this ASN is also and likewise squatting on a great number of other blocks as well: https://bgp.he.net/AS12679#_prefixes AS12679 (Iceburg) appears to be a "leaf" ASN, connected to the public Internet only via AS25227 (Avantel, Close Joint Stock Company, Moscow) which it turn appears to be getting more than 3/4ths of its own IPv4 connectivity from AS9002 (RETN): https://bgp.he.net/AS25227 Suggest filtering all route announcements from both AS12679 -and- also AS25227 until they each decide if they would like to be part of the civilized internet. ====================================================================== [Source: whois://whois.arin.net 2020-01-27 04:18:39 UTC] NetRange: 206.195.224.0 - 206.195.255.255 CIDR: 206.195.224.0/19 NetName: THRIFT-NET-1 NetHandle: NET-206-195-224-0-1 Parent: NET206 (NET-206-0-0-0-0) NetType: Direct Assignment OriginAS: AS12679 Organization: Thrift Drug, Inc. (THRIFT) RegDate: 1995-08-03 Updated: 2019-09-24 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/206.195.224.0 OrgName: Thrift Drug, Inc. OrgId: THRIFT Address: 100 Delta Drive City: Pittsburgh StateProv: PA PostalCode: 15238 Country: US RegDate: 1994-03-15 Updated: 2019-08-14 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/THRIFT OrgAbuseHandle: WEBBK16-ARIN OrgAbuseName: Webb, Kristi OrgAbusePhone: +1-885-923-1290 OrgAbuseEmail: kwebb(a)thriftdrug.org OrgAbuseRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/WEBBK16-ARIN OrgTechHandle: WEBBK16-ARIN OrgTechName: Webb, Kristi OrgTechPhone: +1-885-923-1290 OrgTechEmail: kwebb(a)thriftdrug.org OrgTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/WEBBK16-ARIN

2 6

Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
by Brian Nisbet 21 Jan '20

21 Jan '20

Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

8 11

@EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Marcolla, Sara Veronica 20 Jan '20

20 Jan '20

Very well put, Sérgio. Thank you for voicing clearly the concern of (at least a part of) the community. We should not forget that, according to the provisions of RIPE NCC audits, “every party that has entered into an agreement with the RIPE NCC is contractually obliged to provide the RIPE NCC with complete, updated and accurate information necessary for the provision of the RIPE NCC services and to assist the RIPE NCC with audits and security checks”. Complete, accurate information goes hand in hand with a duty of care, of promptly taking actions against abuse, and should be accompanied by a social responsibility of trying to make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, thus not enabling actively DDoS, spammers, and criminals in general. If the community does not agree that everyone has the right to a safe, spam free, crime free Internet, maybe we have some issue to solve here first. Kind regards, Sara Europol - O3 European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Eisenhowerlaan 73, 2517 KK The Hague, The Netherlands www.europol.europa.eu<http://www.europol.europa.eu> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sérgio Rocha Sent: 16 January 2020 13:38 To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi, Agree, This anti-abuse list seems the blocking group to any anit-abuse response measure. It's amazing that nobody cant propose anything without receiving a shower of all sorts of arguments against There is an idea that everyone has to hold, if as a community we cannot organize a policy, one of these days there will be a problem that will make governments take the opportunity to legislate and we will no longer have the free and open internet. There are a feew ideas that is simple to understand: 1 - If you have been assigned a network you have responsibilities, paying should not be the only one. 2 - There is no problem with email, since ever are made solutions to integrate with emails. There is no need to invent a new protocol. Who has a lot of abuse, invests in integrating these emails. 3 - If you have no ability to manage abuse should not have addressing, leave it to professionals. The internet is critical for everyone, the ability for actors to communicate with each other to respond to abuse must exist and RIPE must ensure that it exists. It’s like the relation with local governments, there is a set of information that has to be kept up to date to avoid problems, in RIPE it must be the same. Sergio From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: 16 de janeiro de 2020 04:55 To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") >> Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run. I just do not understand how anyone on this list (other than a criminal or a business owner that wants to reduce over heads by abolishing an employee who has to sit and monitor an abuse desk) could be talking about making it easier for abuse to flourish. It is idiotic and is not ad hominem. This list is filled with people who argue for weeks, perhaps months, about the catastrophic world ending dangers of making an admin verify an abuse address ONCE a year .... and then someone says "let's abolish abuse desk all together" and these idiots emerge from the wood work like the termites that they are and there's no resistance? The good news is that nothing talked about on this list is ever implemented, so .. talk away you criminals. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com<mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>> Date: 1/16/20 11:47 am To: "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> In message <20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@ email19.asia.godaddy.com<mailto:20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@%0bemail19.asia.godaddy.com>>, "Fi Shing" <phishing(a)storey.xxx<mailto:phishing@storey.xxx>> wrote: >That is the most stupid thing i've read on this list. Well, I think you shouldn't be quite so harsh in your judgement. It is not immediately apparent that you have been on the list for all that long. So perhaps you should stick around for awhile longer before making such comments. If you do, I feel sure that there will be any number of stupider things that may come to your attention, including even a few from your's truly. Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run. >Which criminal is paying you to say this nonsense, because no ordinary person >that has ever received a spam email would ever say such crap. I would also offer the suggestion that such inartful commentary, being as it is, ad hominem, is not at all likely to advance your agenda. It may have felt good, but I doubt that you have changed a single mind, other than perhaps one or two who will now be persuaded to take the opposing position, relative to whatever it was that you had hoped to achieve. Regards, rfg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

12 27

Fw: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Yes of course it would have to be an automated process. A benefit of encrypting all the data is that it keeps the RIPE NCC out of any legal actions that may follow. They are simply a forwarding service and have no other details. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Friday, 17 January 2020, 11:59:51 CET, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: I will be fine with this (having RIPE NCC as an intermediator just to send the abuse report), if instead of a web form (or in addition to it), it is possible to automate it, for example RIPE NCC also accepts x-arf via email. RIPE NCC has the obligation to keep the information without disclosing it, so why we need to have a way to encypt it so RIPE NCC can’t read it? Furthermore, this should be an automated process. The staff is not going to handle every report manually. And moreover, in case of a bigger dispute, even if going to the courts, RIPE NCC can provide in a neutral way all the info of what happened. However, I’ve the feeling that in order to get this working, the policy must mandate that all the responser from the operator which customer is producing the abuse, also follow the same path, so: Abuse reporter (Victim or its ISP) -> RIPE NCC -> abuser operator -> RIPE NCC -> abuse reporter Otherwise, there will not be a way for RIPE to have stats of who is responding to abuse cases and who is not, or even simpler than that, what abuse mailboxes get bounced (which will be a policy violation if happens all the time with the same operator). Never mind we decide or not that not-responding is an abuse-c violation. Stats are good, even if not published with operator names. El 17/1/20 1:12, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de ripedenis--- via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> escribió: Hi Sergio As I read through this thread similar ideas came to my mind. The question I would ask is "Is it too late to take a completely different approach to abuse contacts and reporting via the RIPE Database?" Suppose we had a standard form available via the ripe.net website for providing details of abuse. If you are able to find the "abuse-c:" details in the database now then you must know the IP address involved. The RIPE NCC could send the report to the abuse contact taken from the database via the specified IP address. This does not have to be an email interface either. We could look at other options. The RIPE NCC would then at least know if the report was successfully delivered. Using a standard form would make it much easier for the resource holder to interpret the information. Someone said: "Making such a scheme compulsory would be unacceptable to people who wish to interact with network owners without disclosing that in public ..." I have no understanding of the technology involved here, but when I send you a message on WhatsApp it is encrypted end to end. WhatsApp have no idea (they say) of the content of the message. Would it be possible to submit a form on ripe.net in a way that the content of that form is encrypted and sent to the resource holder so the RIPE NCC have no idea of the content of the form? That would satisfy this concern. Regardless of the outcome of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force, something like this could still be implemented as it is external to the RIPE Database. Food for thought... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Wednesday, 15 January 2020, 10:22:28 CET, Sérgio Rocha <sergio.rocha(a)makeitsimple.pt> wrote: Hi, Maybe we can change the approach. If RIPE website had a platform to post abuse report, that send the email for the abuse contact, it will be possible to evaluate the responsiveness of the abuse contact. This way anyone that report an abuse could assess not only the response but also the effectiveness of the actions taken by the network owner. After some time with this evaluations we would easy to realize who manages the reports and even who does not respond at all. Sérgio -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 15 de janeiro de 2020 08:06 To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>; anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi, On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i > think this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The > current situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from > the start that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes. So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as opposed to "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other network is not interested"? I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any way, but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that do the right thing alrady. > To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for > any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the > purpose of a registry then? "a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Ángel González Berdasco 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Well, I do see the value of an option (a magic email value?) meaning "this entity supports the use of its network for abusive purposes and will take no action on any abuse report". That would save time for everyone involved, and would allow to easily block those networks from accesing ours!

22 72

working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Hi Michele, (changing the subject so we can correctly track this and following emails) The last version is available here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04 But the goal of this discussion is to understand what the community want, for making a new version. I think we are having a good discussion with several key points and already looking in a way forward. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 17/1/20 11:49, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de michele(a)blacknight.com> escribió: I've been trying to follow the back and forth here over the last few days and to be honest I'm rather confused. Which text is actually being proposed? A lot of the discussion here seems to have gone off into all sorts of tangents and it's hard to see what is actually being discussed Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Hi all, I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox"). In the last discussion phase, the only detailed response to this proposal that I got was from Carlos Friacas (which I will respond in detail later-on, as this may also help to revive the discussion). The main question/issue here is still that the actual policy is just a "technical validation". It confirms that there is a mailbox but it doesn't confirm that: 1) Accept emails for abuse reporting 2) The mailbox is the right one and not from someone else, not related to the abuse processing 3) The mailbox is attended and not a black-hole, so nobody pay attention to the abuse reports, or even worst, not full Anything not fulfilling that is useless (as will not fulfil the mission for that mailbox), and then we don't need an abuse-c at all. Even more, I think we can say that an invalid contact, it is against the role of the RIR for having accurate data. It will be interesting if the staff can provide actual data from the existing policy (ripe-705), such as: 1) Has the validation already been performed in all the contacts or only a % of the LIRs and end-users? 2) How many have failed in the first run? 3) After that failure (for those that failed), have the contacts been updated, or only a % of them? Has this helped to located "not anymore existing LIRs or end-users"? How much time, average, takes for the invalid contacts to be corrected? Have them been validated again after some months? 4) How many (%) of those that didn't failed we know that are real abuse-c contacts and not just an existing mailbox that may be not from the right person/team, or even bouncing emails or nobody reading them? I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

7 17

@EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Marcolla, Sara Veronica 17 Jan '20

17 Jan '20

Alex, You say “they just feel this issue should be address via leveraging RIPE resouces”, but I do not see so far any concrete proposal in the sense of addressing issues, only shooting down proposals (for good or bad reasons, I am not entering into the merit here) one after the other. Let’s leverage any resource, but at the same let’s solve the problems – without deflecting the attention with every message. Cheers, Sara From: Alex de Joode <alex(a)idgara.nl> Sent: 16 January 2020 16:30 To: Marcolla, Sara Veronica <Sara.Marcolla(a)europol.europa.eu> Cc: 'Sérgio Rocha' <sergio.rocha(a)makeitsimple.pt>; 'anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net' <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi Sara, The issue with your statement below is that RIPE NCC cannot (legally, under Dutch contract law) disconnect resources if a resource holder (or more likely his customer) does not (properly) deal with abuse complaints. (for instance due to reasons of proportionality) Currently RIPE NCC mandates an email address for receiving abuse notices (which is good, as companies can specify a specific address that is monitored by people who can take action, and notifiers have a way to find out where to sent notices for speedy resolution). The availability of this address is checked by RIPE. So the current system basically works to enhance the infrastructure for those that are willing to deal with abuse notices. Some within this community do feel this is not enough. That as RIPE controls resources, RIPE should be put in a position to leverage these resources in such a way as to ensure all it's resource holders deal with abuse notice in a proper way. This would then lead to a crime free internet and everybody is happy. Implementing this is a fundament shift in the role and responsibility of RIPE. A large and vocal group here, do not believe this "deputisation" is the direction RIPE should pursue. That does not mean they are in favour of a "un-safe, spam infested, crime ridden internet", they just feel this issue should be address via leveraging RIPE resouces. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl<mailto:alex@idgara.nl> | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Thu, 16-01-2020 14h 23min, "Marcolla, Sara Veronica" <Sara.Marcolla(a)europol.europa.eu<mailto:Sara.Marcolla@europol.europa.eu>> wrote: Very well put, Sérgio. Thank you for voicing clearly the concern of (at least a part of) the community. We should not forget that, according to the provisions of RIPE NCC audits, “every party that has entered into an agreement with the RIPE NCC is contractually obliged to provide the RIPE NCC with complete, updated and accurate information necessary for the provision of the RIPE NCC services and to assist the RIPE NCC with audits and security checks”. Complete, accurate information goes hand in hand with a duty of care, of promptly taking actions against abuse, and should be accompanied by a social responsibility of trying to make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, thus not enabling actively DDoS, spammers, and criminals in general. If the community does not agree that everyone has the right to a safe, spam free, crime free Internet, maybe we have some issue to solve here first. Kind regards, Sara Europol - O3 European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Eisenhowerlaan 73, 2517 KK The Hague, The Netherlands www.europol.europa.eu<http://www.europol.europa.eu> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Sérgio Rocha Sent: 16 January 2020 13:38 To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi, Agree, This anti-abuse list seems the blocking group to any anit-abuse response measure. It's amazing that nobody cant propose anything without receiving a shower of all sorts of arguments against There is an idea that everyone has to hold, if as a community we cannot organize a policy, one of these days there will be a problem that will make governments take the opportunity to legislate and we will no longer have the free and open internet. There are a feew ideas that is simple to understand: 1 - If you have been assigned a network you have responsibilities, paying should not be the only one. 2 - There is no problem with email, since ever are made solutions to integrate with emails. There is no need to invent a new protocol. Who has a lot of abuse, invests in integrating these emails. 3 - If you have no ability to manage abuse should not have addressing, leave it to professionals. The internet is critical for everyone, the ability for actors to communicate with each other to respond to abuse must exist and RIPE must ensure that it exists. It’s like the relation with local governments, there is a set of information that has to be kept up to date to avoid problems, in RIPE it must be the same. Sergio From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: 16 de janeiro de 2020 04:55 To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") >> Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run. I just do not understand how anyone on this list (other than a criminal or a business owner that wants to reduce over heads by abolishing an employee who has to sit and monitor an abuse desk) could be talking about making it easier for abuse to flourish. It is idiotic and is not ad hominem. This list is filled with people who argue for weeks, perhaps months, about the catastrophic world ending dangers of making an admin verify an abuse address ONCE a year .... and then someone says "let's abolish abuse desk all together" and these idiots emerge from the wood work like the termites that they are and there's no resistance? The good news is that nothing talked about on this list is ever implemented, so .. talk away you criminals. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com<mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>> Date: 1/16/20 11:47 am To: "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> In message <20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@ email19.asia.godaddy.com<mailto:20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@%0bemail19.asia.godaddy.com>>, "Fi Shing" <phishing(a)storey.xxx<mailto:phishing@storey.xxx>> wrote: >That is the most stupid thing i've read on this list. Well, I think you shouldn't be quite so harsh in your judgement. It is not immediately apparent that you have been on the list for all that long. So perhaps you should stick around for awhile longer before making such comments. If you do, I feel sure that there will be any number of stupider things that may come to your attention, including even a few from your's truly. Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run. >Which criminal is paying you to say this nonsense, because no ordinary person >that has ever received a spam email would ever say such crap. I would also offer the suggestion that such inartful commentary, being as it is, ad hominem, is not at all likely to advance your agenda. It may have felt good, but I doubt that you have changed a single mind, other than perhaps one or two who will now be persuaded to take the opposing position, relative to whatever it was that you had hoped to achieve. Regards, rfg ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

5 9