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

the republic cyberbunker is a country because we the people of 
cyberbunker say it is a country.

despite not attending the UN, which is not a requirement, also all 
requirements set forth in the UN

montevideo convention 1933 regarding the definition of a state are met 
and have always been met.

we have sufficiently demonstrated our military power in 2013. you're 
free to look it up, despite insults

that i would be 'dutch' and other slander (not that we mind getting the 
netherlands involved in some diplomatic incidents - they have tried to 
fuck us over enough in the past - i absolutely adored it when the USA 
went nuts against -them- ), it was all in function. the netherlands 
could have done the easy thing and simply deny any involvement. lol. 
(eventhough historically that would not be completely accurate but cells 
of a cell based network sometimes go and do their own thing ay ;)

(denying all involvement is something the uk, cannot do, in case of 
spamhaus ;)


On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 11:30, Sergey wrote:
>
> There is no such country as 'the republic cyberbunker'.
>
>
> On 01/30/17 14:26, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote:
>>
>> the republic cyberbunker nor the countries in which the customers 
>> operate have laws against viagra. too bad for the uk and their spamhaus.
>>
>>
>> On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 11:06, Sergey wrote:
>>>
>>> And you earn money on those who send offers for viagra. Let's talk 
>>> turkey.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/30/17 14:00, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote:
>>>> let's make one thing absolutely clear: if your 1960s instant 
>>>> messenger of choice (smtp) doesn't have
>>>> a friends list, therefore is full of strangers sending you offers 
>>>> for viagra... that is YOUR problem.
>>>> you either fix YOUR protocol of choice to have, for example, a 
>>>> friends list, OR you gtfo and stop using it.. none of which is OUR 
>>>> problem.. we OWN the internet, we have nothing to do with whatever the
>>>> hell goes on on your silly old protocol. it's not even 'abuse'. if 
>>>> you get UCE it's working as documented.
>>>>
>>>> hate to break the news to you but we won't pull any single plugs 
>>>> just people advertise some urls
>>>> in antique smtp shit... lolol. just let it die. problem solved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> CTO at
>>> *Foton Telecom CJSC*
>>> Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
>>> AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator 
>>> <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET 
>>> <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861>
>>
>
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> CTO at
> *Foton Telecom CJSC*
> Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
> AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator 
> <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20170130/1f5069bc/attachment.html>