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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
by Reza Farzan 06 Oct '16

06 Oct '16

2 1

AS47860 - 93.175.240.0/20 - Wiskey Tango Foxtrot
by Ronald F. Guilmette 06 Oct '16

06 Oct '16

Maybe somebody here knows a guy who knows a guy who actually knows somebody who actually -is- The Internet Police. If not, then I've just wasted a bunch of electrons for nothing.

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

On 04/10/16, 9:25 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > Doing what you are doing. And pointing out that the AUP's you are referring > to are written by, at the least, non ethical people and at the most, dishonest > people. Ah, the legal departments of most every ISP and email provider then? In other words, colleagues of most everybody that attends a RIPE meeting, and official policy set by their employers? Interesting set of perceptions there – but not a terms of reference based on which I intend to carry on this discussion any further. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

I asked about AUP clauses You’re asking me back questions about SMTP and bounce handling That is not an answer to my question, and nor does it follow the socratic method of trying to answer a question by asking more questions, because your line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to the matter being discussed. On 04/10/16, 9:16 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of > various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a better > informed reply. > It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being > better informed. not sure how to respond to that, as it is fairly personally directed, but I will try... Just because various large ISPs and email providers says something it does not mean that it has to be accepted by society. Or even that anything and/or everything they say in common is correct, accurate or fair in an open,ethical and just society. a singular and simple example would be Google.com When their servers behave abusively they bounce emails to their clients saying that the sender has an error. ethical? - no. fair? - no no evil? - no. decent? - no. nice? - no. do I have to believe and trust the largest email provider on the planet earth, Google? - no. > > On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent reply, > for clarity: > You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine > behavior. > To that I respond: I do not agree with you. > > I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is behaving > like an Ass. > I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are talking > about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a Government is > talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. > > Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of > Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply to > that still open thread? > > The rest of your diatribe: > regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a result of > "Internet Abuse" - so abuse(a)hetzner.de has to enforce the German > eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused about what this > "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. > > And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many > examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with "Internet > Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that everything may > simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it so easy - it makes > abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... > > Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the case. > > Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on pushing, > pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to the abuse of > bovines in general) > > anyway, I get your response(s) as well. > > and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply > apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so yet > another example of perspective and point of view... > > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> > > wrote: > > > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes > > > Internet abuse > > > > That is painfully clear to me. > > > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German > > equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as > > internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that > > each ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. > > > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best > > practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely > > moot in this context. > > > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related > > to issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is > > broad consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. > > > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into > > banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of > > internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use > > another such metaphor, asinine. > > > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group > > – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just > > happened to be in the room during an AOB session to remove > > Richard Cox from his role. > > > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, > > and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people > > with zero background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation > > (rather than databases, whois, routing and such), and I get > > that. > > > > --srs > > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a better informed reply. It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being better informed. --srs On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent reply, for clarity: You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine behavior. To that I respond: I do not agree with you. I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is behaving like an Ass. I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply to that still open thread? The rest of your diatribe: regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a result of "Internet Abuse" - so abuse(a)hetzner.de has to enforce the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it so easy - it makes abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the case. Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to the abuse of bovines in general) anyway, I get your response(s) as well. and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so yet another example of perspective and point of view... On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet > > abuse > > That is painfully clear to me. > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German > equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as > internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that each > ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best > practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely moot in > this context. > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related to > issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is broad > consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into banalities > about the minutiae of a catchall definition of internet abuse, let > alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use another such metaphor, > asinine. > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group – not > since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just happened to > be in the room during an AOB session to remove Richard Cox from his > role. > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, and a > lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people with zero > background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation (rather than > databases, whois, routing and such), and I get that. > > --srs > >

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet abuse That is painfully clear to me. Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the German equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally classified as internet abuse handling, that is a separate legal process that each ISP handles per the advice of their legal team. It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set best practice is evolving in that direction, but that is entirely moot in this context. The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are related to issues other than copyright infringement, on which there is broad consensus in ISP acceptable use policy and national law. Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to use another such metaphor, asinine. I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this group – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE region just happened to be in the room during an AOB session to remove Richard Cox from his role. There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status quo, and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from several people with zero background in carrier grade internet abuse mitigation (rather than databases, whois, routing and such), and I get that. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Can we please stick to debating facts instead of fautuous analogies based on transmogrifying animals? What I am seeing here is a weird set of justifications of inaction based on improbable corner cases. Actual cases related to abuse enforcement (anonymized would be fine) are going to be far better than cows or donkeys. On 04/10/16, 7:08 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:12:10 +0300 Sergey <gforgx(a)fotontel.ru> wrote: > Andre, that your cow is a donkey is purely your problem, not of the > others subscribed to the mailing list. Please tell us all why you are saying that? Are you a cyber criminal and it is in your best interests to not have a definition of abuse? or why? what is your agenda? > On 10/04/16 15:49, ox wrote: > > my cow is a donkey >

2 1

Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
by Brian Nisbet 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

Colleagues, Here is the draft agenda for RIPE 73. The AA-WG meeting will be taking place on Thursday 27th October at 12:00 CEST. We're pretty full at this point, but there is some possible room if something urgent crops up. It would also be good if some of those who are involved in the definition of abuse conversation might be interested in taking an active part in the discussion on that topic? A. Administrative Matters - 5' * Welcome * Scribe, Jabber, Stenography * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 72 * Finalise agenda B. Update - 25' * B1. Recent List Discussion * B2. Definition of Abuse C. Policies - 0' * C1. D. Interactions - 15' * D1. Working Groups * D2. RIPE NCC Presentation E. Presentation - 50' * E1. EC3 Presentation - Gregory Mounier * E2. Website-Targeted False Content Injection by Network Operators - Gabi Nakibly X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 74 Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/

3 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 27
by Marilson 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Shane, The entire system...?! This is not the function of a reset button. I hope you do not want to discuss what is abuse? ; ) We need a "reset button" to force (fine, penalty, loss of IP blocks) the ISPs meet the denounces (with evidence) of spam and scam. Nothing more nothing less than to do what their AUPs, TOSs and ASPs determine contractually. In other words, they need to stop acting like greedy psychopaths. They need to learn to respect people. They need to be ethical and honest. I'm generalizing because most I contacted, act that way. How to impose what should be a natural attitude? I make a suggestion for assessment of the skilled persons: The Registrars need get out of his bovine complacency (I call complicity), accept copies of the complaints and punish those who do not comply with the regulations of e-mail marketing. Proost Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 27 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. The email marketing needs a reset button (Marilson) 2. Re: The email marketing needs a reset button (Shane Kerr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:21:14 -0300 From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> To: <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] The email marketing needs a reset button Message-ID: <0438EA2087E844C3ABDA13A42FA8F343@xPC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Whereas the abuse victims do not need to be told what abuse is, considering that existing policies and regulations are satisfactory, and considering that the WHOIS records are 95% correct, I make the following appeal: The email marketing needs a reset button. This appeal I do to decent people. To the others I say try not be hypocrites accusing people of ad hominem using polite phrases whereas are passing their days, sitting in front of a keyboard, angering millions of people. Remember that: you are not imputable only when you act according your AUP and ASP on a denounce. To funny guys: I'm not suggesting changing your AUP and TOS, certainly. Marilson

1 0

Can anyone contact with LalaBhola Bee-Internet-Solutions or Samuel Souza/Belize ?
by B IPPA 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

Hi, I am agent of NPO which act about copyright of adult contents in Japan. We sent copyright infringement claim to LalaBhola Bee-Internet-Solutions, address is described in whois, on 2016/09/28. They didn't any response and content is alive on them. The sites are below. 78.142.19.158 http://animeleax.com/ 78.142.19.244 http://smv.to/ Such as these 2 sites used the provider M247(ro) in animeleax.com, 100TB.com(us) in smv.to. We sent these providers, they forced to remove specified contents. They moved to LalaBhola Bee-Internet-Solutions after 2016/09/26. Warm regards, IPPA agent http://www.ippa.jp/

1 0