Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?
Morning, The verification system that is being implemented is the one that comes from the policy that was approved by the RIPE community. While I, personally, believe it is what is possible right now, the opportunity exists for everyone in the community to propose a different policy. The Anti-Abuse WG Chairs and the RIPE Policy Development team stand ready to assist anyone with this. 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Tuesday 5 March 2019 11:28 To: Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@tristatelogic.com>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? Yes, the verification mechanism they chose to implement was a flop, with no input required from address owners. In reality, it should be "verify your email address by clicking this link once a week or your resources are decommissioned within 24 hours" but alas, that would make too much sense. abuse.net<http://abuse.net> lists these contacts for mesh digital: abuse@meshdigital.com<mailto:abuse@meshdigital.com> (for meshdigital.com<http://meshdigital.com>) noc@meshdigital.com<mailto:noc@meshdigital.com> (for meshdigital.com<http://meshdigital.com>) ripe@netsumo.com<mailto:ripe@netsumo.com> (for meshdigital.com<http://meshdigital.com>) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com<mailto:rfg@tristatelogic.com>> Date: Tue, March 05, 2019 8:55 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Sorry folks, when this topic was discussed, I confess that I wasn't really paying much attention. So now I am forced to ask: Was someone going to verify the abuse contact addresses listed in the RIPE WHOIS data base? If so, how is that project coming along? I'll tell you why I ask. It's quite simple really. Some jerk, probably Mexican, just sent me a spam wherein he was advertising for sale his list of 18 million "business" email addreses. (I can't quite tell if those are all supposed to be specifically Mexican email addrses or what... because the spam was written in Spanish, and I don't speak Spanish.) https://pastebin.com/raw/dT11krpN Note that the specific email address of mine that was spammed was one that I only used in ancient times, and only in conjunction with my activities on one specific web site. (It obviously leaked somehow.) The envelope sender address was forged to be my own. The source IP was 109.68.33.19 as you can see. So naturally, I performed a RIPE WHOIS query on that IP address and the results I got back indicated that the contact email address for spam reports was <abuse@meshdigital.com<mailto:abuse@meshdigital.com>>. So I emailed off a report to that address. Of course, it bounced back to me immediately as undeliverable. This causes me to suspect that either (a) that stuff that I thought that I has seen previously about a project to verify abuse addresses was all just a bunch of malarkey, or else (b) that project is still unfinished and perhaps not going all that well. Could someone please enlighten me and tell me which possibility actually applies? Regards, rfg P.s. It is annoying enough to have to lookup who the bleep should receive a report about spamming from their network _and_ to have to even write such reports, when 9 time sout of ten, the sending network could have easly prevented the spam from even going out. It is just adding insult to injury when the bloody "official" abuse reporting address doesn't even actually exist. And of course, neither meshdigital.com<http://meshdigital.com> nor meshdigital.net<http://meshdigital.net> even have functioning web sites. Apparently this is all the work of some dolts at a company called heg.com<http://heg.com>, in Germany. Do any of you happen to know any of the clueless nitwits who work there? If so, maybe you could put me in direct touch so that I could personally apply a much needed clue-by-four.
This is more in the line with the one that I submitted in other regions (coming also for RIPE, I think this week or next one), that has been already accepted (being implemented) by APNIC: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-125 Regards, Jordi De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Fi Shing <phishing@storey.xxx> Fecha: martes, 5 de marzo de 2019, 12:28 Para: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>, <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? Yes, the verification mechanism they chose to implement was a flop, with no input required from address owners. In reality, it should be "verify your email address by clicking this link once a week or your resources are decommissioned within 24 hours" but alas, that would make too much sense. abuse.net lists these contacts for mesh digital: abuse@meshdigital.com (for meshdigital.com) noc@meshdigital.com (for meshdigital.com) ripe@netsumo.com (for meshdigital.com) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ? From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> Date: Tue, March 05, 2019 8:55 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Sorry folks, when this topic was discussed, I confess that I wasn't really paying much attention. So now I am forced to ask: Was someone going to verify the abuse contact addresses listed in the RIPE WHOIS data base? If so, how is that project coming along? I'll tell you why I ask. It's quite simple really. Some jerk, probably Mexican, just sent me a spam wherein he was advertising for sale his list of 18 million "business" email addreses. (I can't quite tell if those are all supposed to be specifically Mexican email addrses or what... because the spam was written in Spanish, and I don't speak Spanish.) https://pastebin.com/raw/dT11krpN Note that the specific email address of mine that was spammed was one that I only used in ancient times, and only in conjunction with my activities on one specific web site. (It obviously leaked somehow.) The envelope sender address was forged to be my own. The source IP was 109.68.33.19 as you can see. So naturally, I performed a RIPE WHOIS query on that IP address and the results I got back indicated that the contact email address for spam reports was <abuse@meshdigital.com>. So I emailed off a report to that address. Of course, it bounced back to me immediately as undeliverable. This causes me to suspect that either (a) that stuff that I thought that I has seen previously about a project to verify abuse addresses was all just a bunch of malarkey, or else (b) that project is still unfinished and perhaps not going all that well. Could someone please enlighten me and tell me which possibility actually applies? Regards, rfg P.s. It is annoying enough to have to lookup who the bleep should receive a report about spamming from their network _and_ to have to even write such reports, when 9 time sout of ten, the sending network could have easly prevented the spam from even going out. It is just adding insult to injury when the bloody "official" abuse reporting address doesn't even actually exist. And of course, neither meshdigital.com nor meshdigital.net even have functioning web sites. Apparently this is all the work of some dolts at a company called heg.com, in Germany. Do any of you happen to know any of the clueless nitwits who work there? If so, maybe you could put me in direct touch so that I could personally apply a much needed clue-by-four. ********************************************** 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.
In message <20190305042821.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.4d026bdf0f.wbe@email19.godaddy.com>, "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx> wrote:
Yes, the verification mechanism they chose to implement was a flop, with no input required from address owners.
So, um, nobody even checked for undeliverable bounces?? Facinating.
participants (4)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Fi Shing -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Ronald F. Guilmette