[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website

In message <CAArzuosJQN7ku3SqnTSRb+hgTBu=E0h1H=yksNfbAW6MNfBJcQ at mail.gmail.com>
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

>As a thought experiment, if Furio were to remove LIRs from Eastern Europe,
>in particular, Romania, from his list below, what would RIPE NCC's figures
>fall to?

Gentlemen,

Please excuse me for saying that this discussion seems to be veering
rather dramatically away from where it began.

Personally, I don't care how many crooks there are in this region or
that region.  As far as I am concerned a single crook (or spammer) in
_any_ region is one too many, and indicates a failure of something.
What, I'm not so sure.

I understand that my friend Furio Ercolessi was attempting to spur
this group, and/or RIPE NCC and/or RIPE generally to action, based
upon some comparative numbers, and I applaud him for that effort,
even if, as has been noted, both his methodology and the proper
interpretation of his numbers can be (and now have been) questioned.

>From my perspective, even if Furio had crunched the numbers and found
RIPE to come out as having the least issues/problems of any RiR, I,
for one, would still be asking for what I have asked for, a mere
definition of "network abuse", and one which may be viewed as being
binding within the RIPE region.

The charter, such as it is, of this working group, appears to focus
fairly exclusively on the issue of spamming.  If this was arrived at
by explicit intent of the RIPE membership then I will say here and
now that I can live with that (and indeed, it isn't as if I would
have any other choice).  I would like to point out however that within
the document alluded to earlier which contains what passes for a charter
of this group, the terms "spam" and "spamming" are mentioned, but it
isn't even clear whose definition of "spam" is being relied upon in
this context, within that document, or within this group.  This may
seem to some as a petty point, but based upon long personal experience
I can assure everyone most solemnly that (a) there are almost as many
definitions of "spam" as there are people and (b) spammers themselves
invariably define the term self-referentially as "that which I myself
do not do".

In short, this group could do worse things with its time than to at least
develop a clear definition of the one and only particular kind of network
abuse which, it seems, this group was formed to focus its attentions on,
i.e. "spam".


Regards,
rfg