It would be interesting if a large number of people who actually work for the security / infosec / abuse teams of various ripe members were to attend the aawg meetings instead of a clutch of mostly IP / dns / network people.  

That won’t take away the impact of organisations that don’t want to do any abuse handling at all or the IP / dns people that turn up, but might mitigate their pernicious effect on this process to an extent.

--srs
 
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Fi Shing <phishing@storey.xxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:25 AM
To: 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@tristatelogic.com>
Date: 1/16/20 11:47 am
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>

In message <20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@
email19.asia.godaddy.com>, "Fi Shing" <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