Hi David - mailplus, The strength of this chain is not greater than its weakest link. Find out which link and end the spree of criminals.

Every resource, such as an IP, routing via tier-1, a server or a registration at RIPE is part of abuse. Perfect, but they would have to give up a great billing.

It should be easy to complain against abuse. Perfect, but it is hard, time consuming and there will be retaliation.

Every resource holder should monitor for abuse and do its best to keep the resource up to spec to avoid abuse. It will not happens if civil society did not press for the creation of specific laws that criminalize these acts.

In abuse, even the reaction of one of the resource holders is enough to break the chain of said abuse. It takes only one. This would be that weakest link?

RIPE does not care much about. I'm getting around three phishing per day of RIPE customers. Retaliation? Probably. But I'm shitting and walking for them.

Please make it possible to break the chain of abuse! War to the weakest link!

Thanks Marilson -----Mensagem Original----- From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 5:35 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 47, Issue 16 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: Excuses (David Hofstee) 2. Re: Hotmail spam filtering (Suman Kumar Saha) 3. Re: Excuses (Suresh Ramasubramanian) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:03:35 +0200 From: David Hofstee <david@mailplus.nl> To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Excuses Message-ID: <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F9F4BB2B8AA@SBS1.blinker.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Marilson, Thanks for your apology, accepted on my part. Although I don't think individual cases belong in the list, I'm not sure I have seen any other content on this list at all. Which is saddening as well. Regarding abuse in general and how to police it (which is basically what it comes down to since it won't go away automatically)... I have come to a few conclusions for myself: - Every resource, such as an IP, routing via tier-1, a server or a registration at RIPE is part of abuse. - I think that after a certain threshold of complaints is generated, the resource holder must take its responsibility. It should be easy to complain against abuse. - Every resource holder should monitor for abuse and do its best to keep the resource up to spec to avoid abuse. - In abuse, even the reaction of one of the resource holders is enough to break the chain of said abuse. It takes only one. Now here is the part that sucks and RIPE does not care much about: The database of RIPE is inaccurate, it definitely is a resource, and does not work very well in (abuse) corner cases. They are not willing to break the abuse chain because they are not willing to police, for whatever reason they (or an individual) name(s). I won't say that RIPE is the only party not taking responsibility though. Now I understand that when you even struggle with the definition of abuse, it is hard to respond (don't let facts bother you, RIPE). But not keeping the registration up to spec makes it abuse-friendly. Please make it possible to break the chain of abuse! /rant David Hofstee Deliverability Management MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) Van: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marilson Verzonden: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:53 PM Aan: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: [anti-abuse-wg] Excuses THE ANTI-ABUSE-WG ARCHIVES: In August 2015 the only discussion held was generated by a copy of my complaint addressed to an ISP - 13 messages In September 2015 the only discussion held was generated by a copy of my complaint addressed to an ISP - 42 messages Against the grain of these numbers I was politely warned that my messages to the list should certainly be blocked because I clearly do not understand what the list currently does. I was also warned that the list is not the place to make complaints and that I should look for spamcop in the Google search. I would like to clarify to the group that I always start my complaints in submit.snA38em0rJTkVJ7B@spam.spamcop.net<mailto:submit.snA38em0rJTkVJ7B@spam.spamcop.net>, once finalized in spamcop I send the complaint to the ISP responsible for the spammer with copies to pertinent institutions. And copy to anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>. I copy for anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> because I have noticed that my complaints have generated much discussion in the group. I thought I was being helpful. Since I am doing the wrong thing, I apologize to the group members and retreat myself wishing a good job for everyone. Greetings Marilson