However you would need to get past your emotive arguments and focus on clear objective issues. Wrote Michele

Can you maybe help me to formulate this in a non emotive manner? wrote Andre.

So, I truly thank you for your constructive comments as I am stuck at the emotive side... Wrote Andre.

@Andre, never lose your emotive side, your emotional way of arguing. This is a evidence that you are not a sociopath and is able to empathize with your fellow human beings. It shows that your concern, even if it is not correct, is legitimate. You worry about the increase in abuse that has already reached alarming levels. Never so few done so much harm to so many. Never. The insults you're getting are proof that you put your finger in the wound. I urge you to turn that finger violently and make public your concern, out of this group.

And please don’t bring Trump (or any other politician) into this. Apart from anything else this is a RIPE list not an ARIN one ? Wrote Michele.

260 billion spam and scam per day. An army of rascals irritating and stealing people's money. The level of abuse and dishonesty has reached alarming levels. ISPs hiding and protecting criminals. As always, civil society will force its rulers to intervene in this catastrophe because politicians fear their constituents. Who will bring politicians to "into this" will be you guys who turned this anti-abuse-wg into a pro-abuse-wg.

Who defines waht is socially acceptable? Wrote Thomas.

People like Andre who are still capable of being moved are apt to define what is socially acceptable. All members of modern society, if able to feel emotions, are apt to evaluate what is socially acceptable according to the uses and customs of the time. Already the sociopaths, unable to feel emotions and empathize with their fellow men, do not stop of develop mechanisms that enhance the ability of technology to hide and protect scammers and spammers with the clear objective of increasing traffic on the Internet to increase their profits. These are not able to define what is socially acceptable. They should be in jail. Marilson ********************************************************************************************************************************** From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 7:57 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 62, Issue 9 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg@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@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: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) 2. Re: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (ox) 3. Re: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) 4. Re: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (ox) 5. Re: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (Thomas Mechtersheimer) 6. Re: DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity (ox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:43:44 +0000 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> To: ox <andre@ox.co.za>, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> Cc: Luis E. Mu?oz <lem@uniregistry.link>, Mark Foster <blakjak@gmail.com>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <5C898951-97F9-4DED-8A3F-D39013F6EDF1@blacknight.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Nobody is forcing anyone to use RPZ. There are thousands of IETF documents covering a multitude of technologies, both real and imagined (just look at the avian carriers series). Personally I used to have issues with the concept of RPZ when it was first raised years ago, but my views have changed over time, though apparently you only discovered it a couple of weeks ago. In any case, like so many other technologies, it is a tool. People using RPZ do so for a variety of reasons and they should be free to do so. Many of us use DNSBLs to protect our users? inboxes from spam, phishing and other junk. RPZ is a different tech, but in the end is just another tool in our toolbox. And please don?t bring Trump (or any other politician) into this. Apart from anything else this is a RIPE list not an ARIN one ? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ 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,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 06:47:03 +0200 From: ox <andre@ox.co.za> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <mailman.3460.1483696627.1952.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:43:44 +0000 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

Nobody is forcing anyone to use RPZ. There are thousands of IETF documents covering a multitude of technologies, both real and imagined (just look at the avian carriers series).

You are missing important facts in your truthful statement... (so I am agreeing with you 100% - But, you need to add the rest of the truth) The Bind software is the dominant DNS software on the planet. The IETF doc, relating to RPZ - is intended for Bind ops. If left unchallenged, RPZ will become a standard (RFC) Which will legitimize it. NONE of the other real and imagined docs you refer to have anywhere near the same potential direct impact. But, as you are arguing this, I am sure that you will tell me why I am wrong? I am sure that you will also send me a link to a document that defines protocols for fraud, theft and crime? Also, where are the lines then? I mean is hacker tools, cracking software, theft and fraud okay and we do not support child porn? Or are you saying that child porn is also okay? Not clear on what you are saying Michelle? Are you saying that RPZ is okay? That there are worse abuse out there and we should not be concerned with dns abuse? I do understand that people are free to use cracker and hacker tools, free to commit theft, fraud and do whatever their little hearts desire. What I am objecting to, is that non ethical software and systems are being legitimized.

Personally I used to have issues with the concept of RPZ when it was first raised years ago, but my views have changed over time, though apparently you only discovered it a couple of weeks ago. In any case,

I honestly thought that "someone" would stand up and say something as it is so very wrong that it was unimaginable that it would gain so much traction.

like so many other technologies, it is a tool. People using RPZ do so for a variety of reasons and they should be free to do so. Many of us use DNSBLs to protect our users? inboxes from spam, phishing and other junk. RPZ is a different tech, but in the end is just another tool in our toolbox.

And please don?t bring Trump (or any other politician) into this. Apart from anything else this is a RIPE list not an ARIN one ?

I could have used eu examples, but, this being RIPE... (usa examples are less direct) - The point I made was: The World Has Changed. (that goes for the eu/usa/africa/all) Andre ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 06:30:32 +0000 From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> To: ox <andre@ox.co.za> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <DC542018-9D33-4087-AB71-05FB14AF049C@blacknight.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" If you want to lodge your opposition with IETF about a potential protocol / standard / $thing there are mechanisms to do so. However you would need to get past your emotive arguments and focus on clear objective issues. What are your issues with RPZ? How are those issues presented? What is the concern that you want to voice? (While you?re free to share them on this list this isn?t IETF, so it won?t have any impact on any RFC .. ) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ 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,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:12:47 +0200 From: ox <andre@ox.co.za> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <mailman.3461.1483696627.1952.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 06:30:32 +0000 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

If you want to lodge your opposition with IETF about a potential protocol / standard / $thing there are mechanisms to do so. However you would need to get past your emotive arguments and focus on clear objective issues. What are your issues with RPZ? How are those issues presented? What is the concern that you want to voice? (While you?re free to share them on this list this isn?t IETF, so it won?t have any impact on any RFC .. )

As you have said that RPZ is just another tool (to fight abuse) my positions in this wg is to educate, discuss and agitate for change. I cannot do that if I am alone, or if I do not understand why we are where we are. During the thread on the DNS OPS list, I learned that we are where we are because the majority of DNS OPS do not understand that domains are intellectual property and that many of them did not understand abuse. What I have learned up to now, here, is that there is either general apathy or a non understanding of the principles. So, I truly thank you for your constructive comments as I am stuck at the emotive side and I think I suck a bit at proper communication The clear objective issue with RPZ is that it is unethical. Can you maybe help me to formulate this in a non emotive manner? What I have is examples of what RPZ facilitates: In truth Google.com is at a.a.a.a (or ipv6 eq) If user1 asks resolver the IP number for Google.com, the resolver can send false answer of x.x.x.x If user2 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the resolver can supply false answer of y.y.y.y because user2 is doing the asking If user3 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the same resolver can answer a.a.a.a In all the above examples where fake (or any) answers were supplied, the resolver also hides the truth of the fake answer, to the user. Andre ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:43:33 +0100 From: Thomas Mechtersheimer <thomasm@wupper.com> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <20170105104333.GK11359@mechti.nrw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:04:19PM +0200, ox wrote:

[...] But, you neglected to add - That is is not socially acceptable to define protocols for defrauding people, to tell lies, commit deception,

Who defines waht is socially acceptable? btw: most phishing pages use HTTP; HTTP is used for fraud and lies (probably more than RPZ will ever be...); but no one objects the use of HTTP as a protocol -- as the protocol by itself has no moral "value"; it's only the use of a protocol for fraud which is not acceptable.

[...] Heck, if you are honest, and from the responses in this thread, it is already "best practise" and quite acceptable to use/apply RPZ - as apparently "many" are doing this and has been doing it for years.

Yes; mangling of DNS responses has been done for years; RPZ only defines a standard for this procedure (which is better than having many non-standard ways).

[...] That RPZ is DNS abuse, in itself, it is an abuse to Internet Society and it serves to promote Crime.

This is your point of view. Could you provide some evidence where RPZ promotes crime etc. (more than it helps preventing it)? Repeating "RPZ is Evil" again and again doesn't convice me, but as you said: we're in a post-truth world... Thomas ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:56:21 +0200 From: ox <andre@ox.co.za> To: Thomas Mechtersheimer <thomasm@wupper.com> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] DNS Abuse, Abuse of Privacy & Legitimizing Criminal Activity Message-ID: <mailman.3462.1483696627.1952.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:43:33 +0100 Thomas Mechtersheimer <thomasm@wupper.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 12:04:19PM +0200, ox wrote:

...

[...] But, you neglected to add - That is is not socially acceptable to define protocols for defrauding people, to tell lies, commit deception,

Who defines waht is socially acceptable?

Great point :) Society defines its own ethics, morals and values. For example it would be perfectly acceptable to eat other people if we were cannibals :) In modern societies, from African, to Eastern, To American, European, etc. I would argue that there are certain "baselines" For example, it is not acceptable to eat people, as it is also not acceptable to defraud and tell lies. Or do you not agree?

btw: most phishing pages use HTTP; HTTP is used for fraud and lies (probably more than RPZ will ever be...); but no one objects the use of HTTP as a protocol -- as the protocol by itself has no moral "value"; it's only the use of a protocol for fraud which is not acceptable.

Yes, and the but... Nowhere is there a protocol or defined method in RFC about http's that promotes deception and lies... So, it is not about the technology existing - as was recently pointed out, technology in itself cannot be unethical... It is about the publication of a process that is unethical and if leaved unopposed will, in all probability, lead to a "standard"

...

[...] Heck, if you are honest, and from the responses in this thread, it is already "best practise" and quite acceptable to use/apply RPZ - as apparently "many" are doing this and has been doing it for years.

Yes; mangling of DNS responses has been done for years; RPZ only defines a standard for this procedure (which is better than having many non-standard ways).

same as above

...

[...] That RPZ is DNS abuse, in itself, it is an abuse to Internet Society and it serves to promote Crime.

This is your point of view. Could you provide some evidence where RPZ promotes crime etc. (more than it helps preventing it)? Repeating "RPZ is Evil" again and again doesn't convice me, but as you said: we're in a post-truth world...

I did post an exact example, but here it is again: The clear objective issue with RPZ is that it is unethical. Can you maybe help me to formulate this in a non emotive manner? What I have is examples of what RPZ facilitates: In truth Google.com is at a.a.a.a (or ipv6 eq) If user1 asks resolver the IP number for Google.com, the resolver can send false answer of x.x.x.x If user2 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the resolver can supply false answer of y.y.y.y because user2 is doing the asking If user3 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the same resolver can answer a.a.a.a In all the above examples where fake (or any) answers were supplied, the resolver also hides the truth of the fake answer, to the user. Andre End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 62, Issue 9 ********************************************