May 2019 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Marco Schmidt 01 Jun '19

01 Jun '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information more often, and introduces a new validation process that requires manual input from resource holders. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the Anti-Abuse Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 June 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

26 82

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AI used for spam and abuse at Microsoft?
by Ángel González Berdasco 30 May '19

30 May '19

They have many minions working there, Andre. And it's not a work they require much study.(they probably input that into a tool that says Yes/No). If it wasn't blocked for your own mail, it may be due to mails sent from its neighbourhood. Reply to their ticket and insist. Cheers

2 1

AI used for spam and abuse at Microsoft?
by ac 30 May '19

30 May '19

Hi, I have seen a marked increase in email spam abuse from @outlook.com and even when reported it seems as if Microsoft is powerless (or does not want to) stop the payday, viagra and other rubbish there users are apparently sending. I am sure that I am not the only abuse admin that has noticed this and I wondered if anyone knows what happened or what changed @microsoft (or am I just so special that they target only my networks? :) ) My day today: I had the pleasure of learning that Microsoft has hard blocked one of my transactional servers on ALL of their domains and across their entire platform even Internationally/Everywhere... (IPv4: 5.9.29.165) http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/5.9.29.165.html Of course the domain as well as the IP is completely clean as it does not send spam, or even bulk email (it is not even an email server, it is a transactional server) I also have not received any abuse reports over the past ten years, from anyone, anywhere. So, I needed to "apply" to Microsoft to reconsider blocking my IP number: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866 Which is a web form, and reminded me of the recent list discussion about how impossible some webforms are to complete....(Maybe these forms are just as challenging for AI to complete as for people?) Never the less, after 20 minutes, I managed to get the form completed and submitted, only to be quickly informed, via email, that Microsoft has investigated the issue and that they will not lift the block. The response was so very quick... Am I on an International blackball list or somesuch? - Probably not as I am and have never abused anything or anyone. So, the only other thing is maybe AI? So, does Microsoft have actual humans lifting blocks? or is it all automated (and completely broken)? Abuse and Internet abuse is a very relative thing. Like truth, facts and reality. Already we are creating a world where truth and facts are what corporations and powerful people decide they are, I am not sure that abuse handling is something that can already be fully automated in 2019? Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] diff online 2019-03 v1 vs v2
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 23 May '19

23 May '19

As I said in the face to face meeting this morning, I both withdraw my support for this proposal and would also urge you to completely withdraw it. The name of the policy does not reflect its intent and that alone should be reason enough for it to be removed Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 23/05/2019, 09:00, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: Hi all, As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until the impact analysis is completed, I've published a diff online at: https://www.diffchecker.com/Fy6z4VYH Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

3 2

2017-02 Abuse contact validation request email template
by Angela Dall'Ara 23 May '19

23 May '19

As requested earlier this morning during the Anti-Abuse WG meeting, please find below the current template of the email we send to the abuse contacts: ***** Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the mandate to regularly validate "abuse-mailbox:" information and to follow up in cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect. Please click on the following link to validate your email address $abuseMailbox: $confirmationLink You can find more information on our abuse-c validation on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/how-we-will-be-following-up-wi… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/how-we-will-be-following-up-wi…> Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Registration Services ***** Kind Regards, Angela Dall'Ara RIPE NCC Internet Resource Analyst

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 23 May '19

23 May '19

Hi, On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:29:32AM +0200, ac wrote: > > Folks, the process we have in the RIPE region for abuse contact > > validation is the result of a *consensus based process* that happend > > *in this working group*. > > Before you all argue for "we need to have more paperwork!" please take > > a step back and explain a) what is wrong with the current validation > > process, and b) why this proposal would improve this. > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > because, IRL (in real life) things do not remain "static" This is why we do (already!) verify abuse-c: reachability today. In a lightweight process that came out as consensus out of this very WG. [..] > your very forceful and multiple emails arguing very hard against and > all your emails, attacking each and every +1 simply serves to > illustrate that you really want to enforce your opinion on the group > in this regard. > > So, again, I ask: Why not propose to remove the abuse contact resource > completely? Is this where you are going with your very strong and > continuing and ongoing objections? No. Abuse-contacts are useful. We do validate them today for technical reachability. This is fully sufficient to notice technical brokenness. It is not sufficient to enforce actual abuse *handling*, but neither is the proposed policy change. Do not put words in my mouth, I'm perfectly able to do that myself. 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

3 2

diff online 2019-03 v1 vs v2
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 23 May '19

23 May '19

Hi all, As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until the impact analysis is completed, I've published a diff online at: https://www.diffchecker.com/Fy6z4VYH Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

1 0

Off-List Responses
by Brian Nisbet 23 May '19

23 May '19

Colleagues, This adds to the list of things I never expected to have to send an email about, but... While obviously neither the Co-Chairs, nor the RIPE Community, has any wish, intent or ability to "police" mails between two private individuals; I would ask that mails sent off-list *in response* to on-list mails stay within the spirit of conduct that is expected of those interacting in the RIPE Community. As always, please discuss policies, ideas and approaches, do not attack groups or individual people and certainly do not send abusive messages. If you have any questions or comments on this, please don't hesitate to contact aa-wg-chair(a)ripe.net Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Brian Nisbet 19 May '19

19 May '19

I would absolutely agree and I hope that all members of this list, and indeed, all adults, would either stop, or never start, such behaviour. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday 18 May 2019 09:55 To: Brian Nisbet Subject: Fwd: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") Hi This is flat out abusive rather than merely childish behavior - replying offlist to every top posted email on the wg with "top post" Thanks -srs ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bengt Gördén <bengan(a)resilans.se<mailto:bengan@resilans.se>> Date: Saturday, May 18, 2019 Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com<mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com>> top post -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com<mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com>)

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 19 May '19

19 May '19

Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:55:14PM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Are they is the question > > For example - ARIN just reclaimed a large number of IPs from an actor that created a large number of shell companies. http://m.slashdot.org/story/355802 And how exactly would this proposed policy change help with such a case? Please do not just mix in any random example of successful anti-abuse or anti-fraud action with "we need to spend more human lifetime on complicated processes that the bad guys can just easily pass". 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!) 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

9 21

2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Alex de Joode 18 May '19

18 May '19

Ola, It's unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish with this policy: * ensure ripe members have a working (as in receiving mail) abuse email address; * ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and process incoming mails; * ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and read it; * ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and act responsibly on notices. It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box. However this will tell you nothing about how an organisation actually deals with abuse. So it will only burden ripe members to no avail. It is my belief ripe should stick to technical verification that a abuse email box exists and is able to receive mail. Ripe is not the internet sheriff :) Cheers, Alex -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221

5 8

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 18 May '19

18 May '19

Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:56:19AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am sorry but where did I say close down all LIRs? You wanted an alternative proposal. I did one. Close down all LIRs = all abuse is stopped. You find that silly? Yes, it is. You can draw the conclusions yourself, hopefully. 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

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 17 May '19

17 May '19

Yes it is. About the sixth offlist reply I've got from you. And yes this is a top post. Is all the "internet policing" this group is capable of solely restricted to attempted enforcement of usenet era message conventions? --srs ________________________________ From: Bengt Gördén <bengan(a)resilans.se> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 5:51 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") top post -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 17 May '19

17 May '19

That meeting back in December 2010 when a number of wg chairs and such all just coincidentally happened to be in the room during aob and overtime solely to propose that Richard Cox be removed as co chair of the wg sort of convinced me even back then that the answer is actually yes. --srs ________________________________ From: Bengt Gördén <bengan(a)resilans.se> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:50 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") no -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB

1 0

Posting Styles (Was: RE: 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") )
by Brian Nisbet 17 May '19

17 May '19

Gert, > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Sent: Friday 17 May 2019 11:15 > To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>; Suresh Ramasubramanian > <ops.lists(a)gmail.com>; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of > "abuse-mailbox") > > Hi, > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:08:24AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > > And, at least try the minimum amount of politeness in quoting > > > according to local customs. > > > > Can we please let this particular one go? > > No. We manage to do this on the APWG list just fine. Great. I mean, I can find a few incidents of top posting on APWG, but maybe they all get a polite mail from you and never do it again? Neither I nor the other Co-Chairs have any wish to impose such style guides on AAWG. > It can be done if people *care*. And this caring is a matter of basic politness, > "if you enter a discussion, you follow style of the previous speakers". > > If the AAWG list is "we have no interest in politness towards people who > actually have to read what others write, and try to make sense out of > discussions with quoting", I will no longer *read* what is written here, > because it takes too much valuable lifetime. You're extrapolating in a very wrong way here. We have great interest in politeness and clear communication. But I'm also realistic enough to realise that I'm not going to stop people from posting if they don't follow a particular style. This is an open mailing list with lots of different people on it. Honestly, I was all for "inline only" back in the day, but I've made my peace with reality on this one. It is a great pity that you decide not to read conversations I still believe are fairly easy to comprehend. > Isn't this the place where we discuss about (very complicated) rules wrt e- > mail abuse handling verifcation? And we're not able to agree on a basic set > of rules for useful e-mail discussions? Opinions will vary, consensus will not be reached. There are hills I will die on, this is not one of them. If it's one you will die on, then that will be a great loss to the working group as your wisdom and experience are greatly appreciated. Maybe we could honestly, pause this discussion here and take it up in person in Reykjavik as I do feel that might be more productive. Thanks, Brian (With a bit more of his Co-Chair hat on, but even so) 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 17 May '19

17 May '19

Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:37:13AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Anything at all that gets used as a lever to deregister such an LIR and reclaim it's IPs will be a public service. If you have any other policy proposal that does this adequately I'm all ears. Till then faute de mieux.. Let's just close down all LIRs. It will do away with all abuse coming from LIRs. No? That's about the level of "why would this proposal help" that you are argueing on. 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

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 17 May '19

17 May '19

Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:24:51AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > 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. And this proposal helps with this "major crime and corruption problem" in exactly *which* way? 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

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
by Gert Doering 17 May '19

17 May '19

Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:08:24AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > And, at least try the minimum amount of politeness in quoting according to > > local customs. > > Can we please let this particular one go? No. We manage to do this on the APWG list just fine. It can be done if people *care*. And this caring is a matter of basic politness, "if you enter a discussion, you follow style of the previous speakers". If the AAWG list is "we have no interest in politness towards people who actually have to read what others write, and try to make sense out of discussions with quoting", I will no longer *read* what is written here, because it takes too much valuable lifetime. Isn't this the place where we discuss about (very complicated) rules wrt e-mail abuse handling verifcation? And we're not able to agree on a basic set of rules for useful e-mail discussions? 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

1 0

Agenda Update - Anti-Abuse WG Session @ RIPE78
by Brian Nisbet 16 May '19

16 May '19

Colleagues, Here is the latest agenda for the AA-WG Session, taking place in the Main Room at 09:00 GMT on Thursday 23rd May. Remote participation will be available, all of the details on ripe78.ripe.net A. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Scribe, Jabber, Stenography * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 77 * Finalise agenda B. Update * B1. Recent List Discussion C. Policies - *C.1. RIPE NCC Update on 2017-02, Angela Dall'Ara - RIPE NCC *C.2. Policy Proposal 2019-03 - BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation, Carlos Friacas, FCT | FCCN & Jordi Palet Martinez, The IPv6 Company *C.3. Policy Proposal 2019-04 - Validation of "abuse-mailbox", Jordi Palet Martinez, The IPv6 Company D. Interactions - E. Presentation - * E1. The Curious Case of Fake UK LIRs - Gaith Taha * E2. Domain Abuse Activity Reporting - Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 79 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Abuse-c Validation: Update on Progress and Some Numbers
by Mirjam Kuehne 15 May '19

15 May '19

Dear colleagues, With RIPE 78 around the corner, we want to update you on our work to validate abuse contacts in the RIPE Database: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/abuse-c-validation-update-on-p… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions
by Fi Shing 09 May '19

09 May '19

The twitter example is not advertising a product or service. It is conveying information about a product/service that the person has already hired. If twitter sends unsolicited emails to someone when they have not requested that service, or have indicated they no longer want the service, then it is spam. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions From: "ac" <ac(a)main.me> Date: 4/27/19 4:22 am To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Hi, From a recent rant in the WG, something of interest was posted; > opinions on the proper definition of spam. Mr. Andre's preferred > definition appears to allow for "one time" invitations to be blasted > to everyone in the universe. Nonetheless, in Mr. Andre's considered > opinion, "Email Spam is not the same as Spam Abuse" and a "... one In my opinion, the sending of a confirmation email, from say Twitter, to confirm that the actual email address does indeed exist and that their further communications will be solicited - as well as including links to remove/stop further communications: Would be spam (it is still an unsolicited email) - but that single confirmation email is not abuse in itself. Even though Twitter may send 1000's of these to 1000's of different email addresses... I do not think that there is anyone, that works with actual spam abuse, in this WG that disagrees completely with my opinion above. Also, I wanted to add another useful resource link for anyone that is still learning about email abuse: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409 What is frequently missed is that BULK EMAIL itself, is not the issue, but that the keyword is "unsolicited" - For example if you were to relay 1000 Invoices or 1000 status notifications or 1000 opted in mailing list recipients, this would/should not be considered spam or abuse. Then, of course, imnsho UBE itself is outdated as the spammers use 'drip' systems by spinning out 10000's of emails from 10000's of ip's Which various RBL cater for by speedily listing and de-listing resources and then there are all the shiny new tech things, which probably needs a new thread: Automated comment spam or AI based web form spam is a growing issue and is something that merits discussion and a watchful eye... Andre

5 6