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, 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. I copy for 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
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
The "does not care about" chain is precisely what keeps spammers, phishers and such in perpetual business. "Not in my backyard" on steroids. Oh well, I guess that just means us poor security folks are assured of our jobs not becoming redundant anytime in the foreseeable future. --srs
On 30-Sep-2015, at 1:33 PM, David Hofstee <david@mailplus.nl> wrote:
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.
Marilson, I'm not sure who warned you regarding your emails, but it certainly didn't come from the Co-Chairs of the WG. We absolutely welcome discussions of network abuse on the list, just as we welcome ideas on how to improve things, including policy suggestions for the RIPE community. However the reality of the situation is that mails to this list will not suddenly cause the spam to stop. Neither the RIPE NCC nor the RIPE community (as an entity) has the power to do that. The policy process is one of setting out what you want and then gaining consensus, that is the only way that things are changed in this community. The WG Co-Chairs are available to help you with this process and to discuss what is possible. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE Anti-Abuse WG On 29/09/2015 19:53, Marilson wrote:
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, once finalized in spamcop I send the complaint to the ISP responsible for the spammer with copies to pertinent institutions. Andcopyto anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net.
I copy for anti-abuse-wg@ripe.netbecause 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
In message <560BF5C2.4060004@heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Marilson,
I'm not sure who warned you regarding your emails...
I did. This fellow Marilson e-mailed me off list to say that he had some suspicion that perhaps his postings to the list were being throttled in some way. I wrote him back and told him that I would have no knowledge of that, even if it was in fact happening... because I'm not in any sense a RIPE official... but that if in fact the list moderator had decided that he'd been off-topic once too often... well then I personally would AGREE with the judgement, because posting here about (for lack of a better term) "abuse control" issues generally would seem to be on-topic, but posting here about a specific single spamming incident, or even about one sspecific spam-friendly provider (as this fellow Marilson has done) doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant to this list... which, as I understand it, is about the larger issues. Regards, rfg
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
David Hofstee -
Marilson -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Suresh Ramasubramanian