Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [Misc] Research project on blacklists
Not a joke. Just a researcher exploring ways to quantify and measure. Always important to have the academic doing the due diligence on our operational assumptions.
On Jul 17, 2019, at 07:40, ac <ac@main.me> wrote:
This is a joke email, right?
Is it the 1st of April already? :)
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:42:21 +0200 Anushah Hossain <anushah@icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer Science Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists. As part of this work, we'd like to hear from you about the blacklists you currently use, what you perceive as their strengths and weaknesses, and any thoughts you have on how they might be improved.
We've prepared an anonymous survey where you can share your views: https://berkeley.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_200mg5hnQiAOgUl
If you have five to ten minutes free today to fill it out, I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you, and please don't hesitate to respond to me with comments or questions.
(Apologies if you receive this message twice - trying to minimize cross-posting while still reaching a broad audience)
Best, Anushah
Oh. Lets look more at this then. "UC Berkeley" - USA "International Computer Science Institute" "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists." "including a web link, which is tracked and cross tracked" "an anonymous survey" Dude, let us be frank: On this list we discuss abuse, in the open and directly. People on this list has "skills" and can all be anonymous on this list, if they wish to, in fact, many are. (I do not and I am not private) We are talking about email blacklists? right? as the routing blacklists do not bother the evil tech monopolies! It is a fact that the spam from the top ten USA tech companies are the most challenging abuse on the planet - as this type of abuse, is the hardest to combat. - Twitter does not even accept abuse complaints. Facebook does not care and Google mixes spam with ham all the time to defeat email blacklists Why not study the reasons for the percentage increase in the use of inspection/tracking/non private/invasive anti abuse technologies in use by the largest email and dominant players, Google and Microsoft, of ipv6 and the reason why these huge tech players HAVE to push for ipv6 email servers relay to ensure their future dominance of email relay? Instead of "My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists" As, imnsho, that is absolute USA bullshit. and is not even possible. I would go sofar as to state that such research is not intended to "improve" anything but to cement the monopolies we fight daily and is on the EVIL side of the fight. Andre On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:01:16 -0700 Barry Greene <barryrgreene@gmail.com> wrote:
Not a joke.
Just a researcher exploring ways to quantify and measure. Always important to have the academic doing the due diligence on our operational assumptions.
On Jul 17, 2019, at 07:40, ac <ac@main.me> wrote:
This is a joke email, right?
Is it the 1st of April already? :)
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:42:21 +0200 Anushah Hossain <anushah@icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer Science Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists. As part of this work, we'd like to hear from you about the blacklists you currently use, what you perceive as their strengths and weaknesses, and any thoughts you have on how they might be improved.
We've prepared an anonymous survey where you can share your views:
If you have five to ten minutes free today to fill it out, I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you, and please don't hesitate to respond to me with comments or questions.
(Apologies if you receive this message twice - trying to minimize cross-posting while still reaching a broad audience)
Best, Anushah
Hi Andreas I echo Barry's views on the research. Some valid points, but it's a pity that you tend to void them by mostly telling others that they are stupid. I like your idea about studying why certain practices occur. So why not find a University that is interested in starting a project on this? Best Serge On 18/07/2019 07:20, ac wrote:
Oh. Lets look more at this then.
"UC Berkeley" - USA "International Computer Science Institute" "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists." "including a web link, which is tracked and cross tracked" "an anonymous survey"
Dude, let us be frank: On this list we discuss abuse, in the open and directly. People on this list has "skills" and can all be anonymous on this list, if they wish to, in fact, many are. (I do not and I am not private)
We are talking about email blacklists? right? as the routing blacklists do not bother the evil tech monopolies!
It is a fact that the spam from the top ten USA tech companies are the most challenging abuse on the planet - as this type of abuse, is the hardest to combat. - Twitter does not even accept abuse complaints. Facebook does not care and Google mixes spam with ham all the time to defeat email blacklists
Why not study the reasons for the percentage increase in the use of inspection/tracking/non private/invasive anti abuse technologies in use by the largest email and dominant players, Google and Microsoft, of ipv6 and the reason why these huge tech players HAVE to push for ipv6 email servers relay to ensure their future dominance of email relay?
Instead of "My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists"
As, imnsho, that is absolute USA bullshit. and is not even possible.
I would go sofar as to state that such research is not intended to "improve" anything but to cement the monopolies we fight daily and is on the EVIL side of the fight.
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:01:16 -0700 Barry Greene <barryrgreene@gmail.com> wrote:
Not a joke.
Just a researcher exploring ways to quantify and measure. Always important to have the academic doing the due diligence on our operational assumptions.
On Jul 17, 2019, at 07:40, ac <ac@main.me> wrote:
This is a joke email, right?
Is it the 1st of April already? :)
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:42:21 +0200 Anushah Hossain <anushah@icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer Science Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists. As part of this work, we'd like to hear from you about the blacklists you currently use, what you perceive as their strengths and weaknesses, and any thoughts you have on how they might be improved.
We've prepared an anonymous survey where you can share your views:
If you have five to ten minutes free today to fill it out, I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you, and please don't hesitate to respond to me with comments or questions.
(Apologies if you receive this message twice - trying to minimize cross-posting while still reaching a broad audience)
Best, Anushah
-- Dr. Serge Droz Chair, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) Phone +41 76 542 44 93 | serge.droz@first.org | https://www.first.org
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:03:38 +0200 Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Andreas I echo Barry's views on the research. Some valid points, but it's a pity that you tend to void them by mostly telling others that they are stupid. I like your idea about studying why certain practices occur. So why not find a University that is interested in starting a project on this?
More funded research? Good idea... Maybe I must ask Google, Microsoft or one of the other few whether they will pay for research into mostly their own practices... (sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, so, I guess I am witless...) I wonder who is paying for the research into "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists."... and, no, not 'stupid' It is in the US (not international/planetary) most best interests to have research stating that "blacklists" data collection methods and data is not accurate and requires improving... See? Already the issue has shifted It is not whether blacklists need improvement It is not whether "blacklists" are accurate It is about: "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists." The entire post is arrogant, obnoxious, offensive and inaccurate and is an oxymoron. Andre
On 18/07/2019 07:20, ac wrote:
Oh. Lets look more at this then.
"UC Berkeley" - USA "International Computer Science Institute" "evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists." "including a web link, which is tracked and cross tracked" "an anonymous survey"
Dude, let us be frank: On this list we discuss abuse, in the open and directly. People on this list has "skills" and can all be anonymous on this list, if they wish to, in fact, many are. (I do not and I am not private)
We are talking about email blacklists? right? as the routing blacklists do not bother the evil tech monopolies!
It is a fact that the spam from the top ten USA tech companies are the most challenging abuse on the planet - as this type of abuse, is the hardest to combat. - Twitter does not even accept abuse complaints. Facebook does not care and Google mixes spam with ham all the time to defeat email blacklists
Why not study the reasons for the percentage increase in the use of inspection/tracking/non private/invasive anti abuse technologies in use by the largest email and dominant players, Google and Microsoft, of ipv6 and the reason why these huge tech players HAVE to push for ipv6 email servers relay to ensure their future dominance of email relay?
Instead of "My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists"
As, imnsho, that is absolute USA bullshit. and is not even possible.
I would go sofar as to state that such research is not intended to "improve" anything but to cement the monopolies we fight daily and is on the EVIL side of the fight.
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:01:16 -0700 Barry Greene <barryrgreene@gmail.com> wrote:
Not a joke.
Just a researcher exploring ways to quantify and measure. Always important to have the academic doing the due diligence on our operational assumptions.
On Jul 17, 2019, at 07:40, ac <ac@main.me> wrote:
This is a joke email, right?
Is it the 1st of April already? :)
Andre
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:42:21 +0200 Anushah Hossain <anushah@icsi.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm a researcher at UC Berkeley and the International Computer Science Institute. My colleagues and I are working on evaluating and improving the accuracy of blacklists. As part of this work, we'd like to hear from you about the blacklists you currently use, what you perceive as their strengths and weaknesses, and any thoughts you have on how they might be improved.
We've prepared an anonymous survey where you can share your views:
If you have five to ten minutes free today to fill it out, I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you, and please don't hesitate to respond to me with comments or questions.
(Apologies if you receive this message twice - trying to minimize cross-posting while still reaching a broad audience)
Best, Anushah
participants (3)
-
ac -
Barry Greene -
Serge Droz