On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 18:29:09 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

...

how do you know that it is not some law enforcement effort at entrapment of criminals? And how do I know that you, or any other of the naysayers opposing

On 09/08/16, 5:51 PM, "anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of andre@ox.co.za" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of andre@ox.co.za> wrote: these policies, actually have any sort of a background or job role related to abuse management instead of merely allocating IP addresses or operating DNS? Linkedin, I guess.

As for me, I operate actual public blacklists - I list scammers, spammers, phish, child pornographers, criminals and other abuse... http://ascams.com/configuring-ascams-com-dns-lists/ I also track bots, botnets and abuse as well as criminal technology I also publish Internet scams, warnings, guides and other resources and I have eight sites and servers all related to the same thing... So, my own abuse involvement is in the public domain.

In any case, drilling down on one case isn’t the issue here. Preventing the misappropriation of v4 address space by these entities is more to the point here, though I doubt it will ever be discussed in a usable manner, given the hackneyed arguments raised here over the years.

No, respectfully, I disagree with you again. There needs to be a discussion about the due process systems to retrieve abused public resources. My superblock.ascams.com blacklist is now sometimes running at between 3million and as much as 4,2 million abuse ipv4's... - There are no false positives in my lists - not even a one. If a number is listed it has sent phish. spam, scams and/or other criminal or abuse activity. Andre

--srs