> From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net
> Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:00:02 +0100
>
> Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> anti-abuse-wg-owner@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: Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 (Ronald F. Guilmette)
> 2. Re: Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 (Ronald F. Guilmette)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:41:53 -0800
> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Message-ID: <55478.1362638513@server1.tristatelogic.com>
>
>
> In message <51371EFA.3030502@heanet.ie>,
> Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
>
> >> P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing
> >> list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are
> >> not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.)
> >
> >I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree
>
> Then why hasn't anything been done?
>
> I reported a set of blatantly, provably, outrageously fradulent networks
> here over six weeks ago now. As far as I can tell, they are all still
> on the books (in the RIPE data base) and all still operating with total
> and utter impunity... still announcing routes to innumerable IPv4 blocks
> registered to innumerable utterly fradulent and fictitious entities, all
> of which were transparently and deliberately created, out of whole cloth,
> by a single party or entity, entirely and only as a ruse to trick RIPE NCC
> out of huge quantities of IPv4 addresses so that those could then be sub-
> leased to several different snowshoe spammers. (None of this is speculation.
> I have the evidence that clearly supports every charge I've just made, and
> would have provided it to anyone who asked, but apparently nobody, either
> here or elsewhere, gives or gave enough of a damn to even ask to see any
> of it.)
>
> RIPE NCC knows all about this stuff, and they haven't lifted a finger
> in over six weeks to do squat about any of it. And I daresay that it
> now seems abundantly likely that we will see action out of the College
> of Cardinals in Rome long before we see any out of RIPE NCC on this issue.
>
> Personally, I think this indefensible and abject inaction makes a mockery
> of you, me, this working group, the Internet as a whole, and every person
> who, like me, has invested even a moment of their time, effort, or intellectual
> abilities to try to ferret out and then report these kinds of outrageously
> crooked operations to ``responsible authorities''... and I use the term
> loosely. I mean what's the point? I could have more profitably invested
> my time and energy in rearranging the contents of my sock drawer. (And I
> doubt that this point will be lost on any others who might likewise be
> tempted to work to make the Internet a better place for all. Why bother?
> It won't be appreciated and more to the point, it won't have any effect.)
>
> I see only two possibilities. Either what I reported is not actually and
> formally considered to be ``abuse'', or else _rectifying_ ``abuse'', even
> of the most blatant, fradulent, wasteful, and destructive kind, is now
> provably not on anybody's official TO-DO, list. You claim that it is
> not the former. If it is the latter, then all activities of this working
> group, past, present, and future, may, in my opinion, rightfully be derided
> as being nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation and bureaucratic
> mumbo jumbo yielding absolutely nothing of value.
>
> If the point of this WG is merely to _talk_ about network abuse, then I'm
> confident that it will go down in the history books as having been a great
> success.
>
> >so we're good.
>
> Speak for yourself please.
>
> To quote the Lone Ranger's trusty (American-)Indian sidekick Tonto ``What
> do you mean WE kimo sabe?''
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:51:08 -0800
> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Message-ID: <55540.1362639068@server1.tristatelogic.com>
>
>
> In message <51372538.60604@hovland.cx>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote:
>
> > On 03/06/13 11:48, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >> Ronald,
> >> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36:
> >>> I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG
> >>> will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and
> >>> generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand.
> >>
> >> I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I
> >> think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take
> >> the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and
> >> after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere.
> >> If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if
> >> n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1
> >> definitions.
> >
> >I am pretty sure it will take until the end of the world to agree on a
> >definition. Perhaps even longer.
>
>
> "And when the broken hearted people, living in the world agree,
> there will be an answer, let it be."
> -- Paul McCartney
>
>
>
>
> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
> ********************************************