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

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