[anti-abuse-wg] Delivery Status Notification (Delay)

Saschas mailserver is one dead:d00d, as it's IP suggests.. Must be some new
fangled 100% effective measure to block all spam, by rejecting all mail :)
On 11-May-2014 10:52 pm, "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <
mailer-daemon at googlemail.com> wrote:

> This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
>
> THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.
>
> YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.
>
> Delivery to the following recipient has been delayed:
>
>      ripe-lists at c4inet.net
>
> Message will be retried for 2 more day(s)
>
> Technical details of temporary failure:
> Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server
> for the recipient domain c4inet.net by mail.c4inet.net.
> [2a02:2078:100:dead:d00d::25].
>
> The error that the other server returned was:
> 450 4.1.1 <ripe-lists at c4inet.net>: Recipient address rejected: User
> unknown in local recipient table
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>         d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
>
> h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
>          :cc:content-type;
>         bh=ezofrR9Jly/3K8mE1UqmUHR/6n8DMV0kIwu3A/4i2Gc=;
>
> b=MSgQCM7DYjHp5YOSPrfsb8iZ/yQQqREoH6I9a/OAMiQkheW/5A6t4oVVaIITFA4TvX
>
>  u/WFlhbn6IcLAzy49jKqJDc8PSWolwFtvOPOZQ9JyXhUekb6L+hk9c9msFXmmNOXLN+6
>
>  eTznBX+DFnvI39YnbpEH2dqjOvQ9TeaKuP72tHJNr7I5Yyht2MotnE874bF5ZTIK5/gD
>
>  WFnCl3KODF0r3bSJVqjFU4FK4K8MOhoBt7rB5Qwsn2Cv0aJuBWeJEiWxj54BdKqvJ/hy
>
>  0uW4e65bITM7QzKI5nbNMSAoMOPnDtjX4sr8FSPxf6oKC3VWCrUZa2q+1CsYAsncyFZP
>          ifaA==
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Received: by 10.182.236.229 with SMTP id
> ux5mr22650408obc.12.1399738727296;
>  Sat, 10 May 2014 09:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by 10.60.11.195 with HTTP; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by 10.60.11.195 with HTTP; Sat, 10 May 2014 09:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <20140509145826.GA87032 at cilantro.c4inet.net>
> References: <536CDE63.6070605 at heanet.ie>
>         <20140509145826.GA87032 at cilantro.c4inet.net>
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 21:48:46 +0530
> Message-ID: <
> CAArzuos+Cz0jcoXaiqo3Mjwjo09espso4+aPeTYkp0gk6u9hQA at mail.gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com>
> To: Sascha Luck <ripe-lists at c4inet.net>
> Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e9cc9e759f04f90e110f
>
> That is a hair that need not be split.
>
> The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
>
> And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it would
> not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
>  On 10-May-2014 9:09 pm, "Sascha Luck" <ripe-lists at c4inet.net> wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:55:47PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >
> >> All systems and mechanisms, technical and non-technical used to create,
> >> control and make money from network abuse.
> >>
> >
> > to begin with, this sentence appears to fail grammatically even
> > in the original text. Does "create, control and make" really refer to
> > "money"?
> > I also consider the new text over-broad. Without defining what "network
> > abuse" is, you are potentially putting any commercial activity on the
> > Internet under the remit of this WG.
> >
> >  While areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal content are not
> >> seen as a central part of the working group's remit, they are
> >> unquestionably bound up in other aspects of network abuse and, as such,
> may
> >> well be areas of interest."
> >>
> >
> > This is a statement without any evidence to back it up. Why should
> > "hosting illegal content" (illegal in which jurisdiction, under which
> > laws?) be "unquestionably" bound up with "other forms of network abuse"?
> >
> > As an example from the RIPE service region, hosting a gay website is
> > now, AIUI, illegal in Russia. How, exactly, would this be "bound up with
> > other forms of network abuse"?
> > Without a clear definition, arrived at by way of consensus, of what
> > "network abuse" is, I would strenuously object to such an expansion of
> > the scope of this WG.
> >
> > rgds,
> > Sascha Luck
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20140511/55c16422/attachment.html>