This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marilson
marilson.mapa at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 23:40:11 CEST 2015
Sorry, the last message that I sent it was not ready. About the message from Ronald F. Guilmette - rfg at tristatelogic.com. Sirs, I'm a layman in this matter and I don't properly dominate the English language. But keeping the focus in the domain registrant it is like insisting blindly on a dead-end road. An example: I reported and still denounce a client of Enzu Inc - registrant Emerson Morais. Despite numerous complaints with evidence, this company - Enzu (ISP) - has refused to suspend his client. Worse! With angry of these complaints and insults that I started to do when it became clear that they did not care, their own abuse team has flooded my mailbox with spam. I already received in the last seven days, so far, 79 equal spam promising to take providence with respect to a specific complaint that I did. The Enzu is an internet service provider that supports spammers and is an accomplice in the practice of crime - phishing - and I can prove what I'm saying. With providers of that kind, spammers is a lesser evil. I understand that the focus should be directed to companies that provide the means and tools for the commission of that crime. Regards, Marilson -----Mensagem Original----- From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 7:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Fw: Spam-phishing (Ronald F. Guilmette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:01:19 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: Spam-phishing Message-ID: <27273.1440187279 at server1.tristatelogic.com> In message <1440125297.17376.0.camel at extraterrestrialmail.com>, wishcraft at user.sourceforge.net wrote: >You know we are making a place for all those kind of bans -- >http://xortify.com For the benefit of everyone on this list, perhaps you could describe, briefly, this project. Frankly, it is a little difficult to understand what this project is really all about from the home page that you posted a link for. After scrolling down past quite a lot of material on that page... material which provides no useful information to a prospective new user... I finally found a block of text under the heading of "A bit about Xortify!" But even this text raises more questions than it answers. I get the impression that this project is one whose primary aim is to develop, maintain, and publish... based upon inputs from a distributed base of many users in various places... something which amounts to an IP address blacklist, and that this blacklist is primarily intended to be used to prevent certain web visitors from doing certain things (e.g. signing up for accounts) based upon their IP addresses. Is that basically all correct? If so, it would be helpful if the text on the home page of the web site for this project would say that clearly, at the very beginning. It would also be most helpful if the project home page would answer the kinds of questions that apply generally, to all sorts of IP-address based blacklists, specifically: * How exactly is it determined that a given IP address is behaving (at present) in a "bad" way which makes it worthy of being listed on the blacklist? * Are entire ranges of IP addresses ever blacklisted? If not why not? And if so, how are the proper ranges determined, and by whom? * Might the list contain some IP addresses that are dynamically allocated to end users? And if so, isn't the claimed 3-month automatic expiration time for all listings excessive for those types of IP addresses? * Due to the increasing use of NAT, especially in conjunction with the dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses, doesn't blacklisting a single IP address contain the potential of creating "false positives" and the blocking of many many innocent users? (It seems to me that this problem would be substantially more sig- nificant in the case of a blacklist aimed at HTTP transactions, whereas it is only a very minimal problem in the case of IP address blacklists aimed at SMTP transactions.) Please don't get me wrong. I admire and applaud anyone who works to try to help his fellow man to block the actions of the bad and disruptive elements on the Internet. And thus, I admire and applaud this project. But before anyone might decide to become either a user or a contributor to such a project, it would be important, I think, to have answers to the key questions I have noted above. Regards, rfg End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4 ********************************************
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]