My email client doesn't allow me to do it in a different way (Outlook for Mac). If somebody is able to help, I'm happy. I can't change my client, for different and long to explain business reasons. Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting policy session to avoid responding in-line to emails about policy discussions. So, I'm confused. Regards, Jordi El 17/5/19 12:08, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> escribió: Folks, > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Gert > Doering > Sent: Friday 17 May 2019 11:03 > > And, at least try the minimum amount of politeness in quoting according to > local customs. > > (@chairs: can i propose a policy that makes it required policy to do proper e- > mail quoting style, and otherwise people will permanently lose their Internet > access? This would arguably only hit bad people and would be so much relief > from this continuos abuse of my eyes!) Can we please let this particular one go? For various reasons, such as software, style and the changing nature of reality, top posting is a common thing. This is the reality. I realise it breaks sacred oaths and trusts and I also understand a lot of people find it more difficult to parse, but it's the reality and, even if it could be changed, remarks on this mailing list will not change it. I am happy to discuss this further with you over a beverage at the meeting next week, but it ain't gonna change, so I do not believe it's helpful to any discussion to continue to refer to it. Thanks, Brian (Only slightly with his Co-Chair hat on, this is more of a hope than anything else...) Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

I might just introduce a counter proposal to retire mutt / pine / elm type console clients and their quoting styles. I am not entirely sure why such a triviality based on an outmoded convention is side tracking the discussion here. In any case, the argument has been put forward that all LIRs are legitimate organizations with overworked abuse desk personnel whose jobs shouldn't be made harder. That statement unfortunately stands or falls by the first part of it, that all LIRs are legitimate. It seems entirely possible for anybody at all to register a company and follow the paperwork required to become a LIR and then allocate /14s at a time back in the day and maybe smaller netblocks now to malicious actors. With several countries in the RIPE region that have a major crime and corruption problem, no extradition or mlat treaties with the US or Europe and some that have used internet crime as a method of waging war in the past, it is the very last assumption you must base your policies on, let alone mailing list arguments. --srs ________________________________ From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:46 PM To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Cc: Brian Nisbet; Gert Doering; Suresh Ramasubramanian; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting policy session to avoid responding in-line to emails about policy discussions.

"If you go to Rome, do as the romans do" = "follow local customs" And Outlook *can* do that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

And of course ripe isn't the internet police eh --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of furio ercolessi <furio+as@spin.it> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 7:24 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:24:51AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

[...] It seems entirely possible for anybody at all to register a company and follow the paperwork required to become a LIR and then allocate /14s at a time back in the day and maybe smaller netblocks now to malicious actors.

LIRs in the RIPE area are now limited to a single /22 ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-708#51 ), and as a consequence of this we are now seeing people creating multiple LIRs one after the other, each getting a single /22, and amassing a large of amount of v4 space with this simple trick. ARIN seems now to be going more aggressively than in the past after these guys ( https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/05/a-tough-week-for-ip-address-scammers/ ). furio ercolessi

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:

[..] IPv4 real estate

IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better policy proposals). Do not do so. -- Töma

On Sat, May 18, 2019, 3:44 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

If it weren't effectively property there wouldn't be firms listing large blocks of v4 space as an asset while going out of business, and there wouldn't be brokers specializing in acquiring and reselling this space.

If someone can sell something others may want to buy, it doesn't mean that what's being sold and bought is a property. There are people who are paying for some stars to have certain particular names in arbitrary private databases. "star-registration dot com" and such. IP addresses are essentially the very same thing. -- Töma

In message <CALZ3u+ZoqY19n28-9ZNu8q2O+EZnjGLve1Ri1aCn90ThsrmDzw@mail.gmail.com> =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:

...

[..] IPv4 real estate

IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better policy proposals).

Do not do so.

You are attempting to correct the Wrong Guy my friend. "Property" is not a term that *I* personally selected. It was mentioned on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (arin-ppml) this week that some of the actual court filings in the suit and counter-action against this company Micfo (which perpetrated the big fraud against ARIN) explicitly used the word "property" with respect to IPv4 address blocks. (I not sure who used the term... in may have been Micfo, it may have been ARIN officials, or it may have been the judge.) My point is that OTHER PEOPLE are calling it "property". If you disagree, you need to take it up with them, not me. I will say this however... Given that there is now an active and vibrant market for IPv4 addresses, it seems a bit silly, and altogether anachronistic to insist on still NOT calling IP addresses property, even in the current era. My only hope is that you will not likewise chastize me for using other terminiology that I also didn't invent or initially spread, such as "Dieselgate" etc. In short, I just work here. Other peoole at higher pay grades than me get to decide what things are called. I'm just going with the flow. Regards, rfg

On Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:21 AM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:

[..] some of the actual court filings in the suit and counter-action against this company Micfo (which perpetrated the big fraud against ARIN) explicitly used the word "property" with respect to IPv4 address blocks.

Yes, terminally stupid things happen sometimes, but a wise folk doesn't participate in them. There's a guy in the ENOG community, from Kazakhstan I think, who is now facing actual criminal charges. The story: he obtained an IP block of a defunct LIR through NCC-backed transfer, and the company who owned the defunct LIR before now treats that as robbery because they had no written transfer contract between two parties which would be viewed as legitimate by the Kazakhstanian law — a RIPE NCC transfer obviously is not seen as such, because there's no agreement about those things between Amsterdan and Nursultan — at the time of transfer. And yes, Kazakhstanian court also thinks IP addresses are property. Do you consider yourself in a good company now? IP addresses are a public shared resource. They are a *policy*, not a property. Within different networks policies might be different, and you should only care about the policies of a network you're connecting to. Stating that those are property is really one step away from even more stupid moves, like abandoning RIRs altogether and shifting the policy processes to NIRs instead, because it's governments who are in charge of property distribution control. Which is why, if you really belong to the "property" team, then why would you really participate in the RIR WGs anymore. -- Töma

On Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:03 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:

For years I have tried to persuade all of my friends and family to call my Honda automobile a Ferrari.

And now you try to persuade everyone on the list that IP addresses are real estate. So, did you develop a habit for such things? :-) -- Töma

More a question of locus standi - how many court cases have we seen so far where an RIR has filed a brief or an affidavit making such a point? --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 2:37 PM To: Ronald F. Guilmette Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") On Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:03 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com<mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:

And yes, Kazakhstanian court also thinks IP addresses are property. Do you consider yourself in a good company now?

I am not in a position to argue with the opinions of either Kazakhstan coyrts or U.S. courts. That is a nice phrase! For your information, courts rely on independent subject matter experts to make adequate decisions, and you now admit that you do not have enough experience and/or expertise to testify about such things in a court to persuade a judge even in your own country of origin. That is, well, a reason to shut down quite a few discussions on that list now :-) -- Töma

Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:35:16PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet".

You do not understand much about communication and people, do you? Mailing list are different from web forums, and mailing lists are different from ticket systems, and mailing lists are different from other mailing lists. Communications platforms are defined by the people that are already there and the way *these people are using* the platform. If something is accepted behaviour on plattform one, it does not automatically make it the correct communication style on plattform two. (And be careful with "Internet planet", because *that* planet has had a given quoting and communication style, long before you youngfolks came on board and started being impolite and ignorant) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279