[anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Re: RBL policy

also it's quite vague that when some mossadis rent servers and run an 
espionage botnet on it (which we happily intercept ourselves ofcourse) - 
spamhaus somehow magically never lists -that-.. just

'websites on which replica rolex is sold' 'websites on which RUSSIANS 
accept CREDITCARDS (mind you, with the same payment processor and 
merchant id for the past 10 years, so far for 'fraud' ;), etc.

the intent of spamhaus is very very clear... 'brittain rules the 
internet'. it has nothing to do with 'spam' or any 'abuse' of either the 
nagging nerds (spam) type of the real actual type.

they also illegally copy/paste data from the ripe whois database btw. of 
which the terms state; only members and law enforcement... spamhaus is 
neither (At least not in whichever offshore it is that operates their 
website ;).


On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 10:53, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RBL policy
> Date: 	Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:51:40 +0000
> From: 	HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker <svenk at xs4all.nl>
> Organization: 	Republic CyberBunker
> To: 	Simon Forster <simon-lists at ldml.com>
>
>
>
> On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 09:39, Simon Forster wrote:
> >> On 30 Jan 2017, at 06:13, ox<andre at ox.co.za>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> May I please solicit some comments about Abuse Block lists
> >> (Without detracting from RFC 5782 and RFC 6471 or :
> >>https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409  )
> >>
> >> Firstly, the background for the start of this thread is simply: As the
> >> use of machine learning technology is now also applied and adapted for
> >> the use of cyber criminals (including spammers, scammers, etc) the
> >> rules and what is socially acceptable is and has changed. Global
> >> politics, protectionism, nationalism and the other 'isms' are also
> >> causing change.
> >>
> >> Considering that DNSBL tech is "reactive" (after he abuse)
> > This statement appears to be exclusionary — and is one often levelled against DNSBLs. All DNSBLs are not wholly reactive.
> >
> > Firstly, one needs to acknowledge that all DNSBLs are not they same.
> >
> > Secondly, some listings in some DNSBLs are proactive. i.e. Made before abuse is seen. As I work for the commercial arm of Spamhaus, I know their offerings quite well and can confidently state that some of the Spamhaus block lists contain proactive and/or precautionary listings.
> >
>
> > to be exact: the criminal organisation spamhaus their illegal blacklists effected some 20 million ips on our last scan of their entire database contents. (although that's a bit hard to do, as named kept crashing running 24 cores of gethostbyname() on 10ge , so we may have missed a few million here and there)
> at a simultanious portscan of the entire ipv4 internet, it turned out
> there were only some 200000 smtp servers left however.
> > that leads to the conclusion that 99% of the listings is purely there for blackmail purposes, and has nothing to do with your silly old SMTP protocol AT ALL. the only reason to list those others is to put pressure on people to 1: spend manhours on interacting with the (non-sollicited) spamhaus 'organisation' and 2: illegally force people into breach of contract with their clients.
>
> listing sales department networks of transit carriers to breach national
> carriers and connected hosting farms into breach of contract with a
> customer, of which steve linford does not like the CONTENT on the
> website, kinda, fucks up statistics ay.
>
> face it: smtp is dead, and needs no 'protection' at all.. also ip
> addresses identify nodes in a network, not people.
>
> also: forcing people to contact spamhaus, causes manhours to be spent on
> communication, which is extortion, as we have no contractual relation
> with spamhaus whatsoever, so trying to force carriers and isps into
> communication with them, is a crime. (although only punishable by 3
> months in .nl ;)
>
> the 'we don't block anything' argument doesn't go. spamhaus advertises
> the fact that they have influence on roughly 1/3rd of mail delivery so
> they know damn well that by entering an ip on their list, of a sales
> department of a transit carrier, like they did with at least: tata and
> tiscali, that they are deliberately obstructing data communications and
> therefore violating any and all computer sabotage acts.
>
> as for the way in which they advertise their BGP feed. let's just say
> that we have BGP feeds as well. and we will use them AGAINST spamhaus
> again. (it's called an internet exchange you dummy ;) "we advise our
> peers to nullroute traffic to spamhaus or give a preferred route to one
> of our dns servers which always returns 127.0.0.2" :P
>
> we still kinda had it with their fuckery.
>
> they simply should roll over and die. if not they should get some help.
>
> fun fact: with all the 110 competing 'auto list / auto-de-list' dnsbls
> in the world, there never was -any- issue whatsoever...
>
> having cghq jew linford crying in the jew press that we would be
> 'spammers' may have worked to spread slander... however fact of the
> matter is that smtp is loong dead and we usually don't even read it,
> sometimes don't have servers for it, and in any case, blocked port 25 on
> all our networks by default ever since 2004. lolol. (who the FUCK still
> uses smtp anyway, and why the hell would 'abuse' of it be an excuse to
> disconnect paying customers - if any - as we certainly never could FIND
> any "spammers" that could afford our fees ;)
>
> what we see here is a CGHQ JTRIG operation (Spamhaus) trying to enforce
> UK laws and trade policy upon the rest of the internet, it has nothing
> to do with 'abuse' spamhaus is a political operation run by the jews at
> CGHQ.
>
> stophaus is a colation of cyberdivisions of armies fighting them. china,
> russia, and the republic cyberbunker have every right in the world to
> just nuke linford off the surface of this planet. and that's probably
> just what we should have done in the first fucking place.
>
> >   I imagine SURBL does likewise. Other block lists probably have similar policies / inputs.
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >> The block time policies of RBLs
> >> ***********************************
> >> There are two main types of block lists: No automatic removal and
> >> automatic removal
> >>
> >> Is the policy to auto de-list after a period of time, still accurate?
> >>
> >> Considering the change in abuse patterns and technology, should the
> >> block times be increased or de-creased?
> >>
> >> Does society require more specialist non auto de-list DNSBLs?
> >> (Would it be helpful to law enforcement to have a "child pornography"
> >> dnsbl? or a phish dnsbl? - or is the reactive time to high in order
> >> for dynamic ipv4? - but on ipv6 allocations to devices could be more
> >> 'permanent'? etc)
> >>
> >> Andre
> >>
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20170130/283bd24d/attachment.html>