<html> <head> <style></style></head> <body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Ronald, Have you considered working with the Dutch National Cyber Security Center? The people there may be very much interested in your data. Best wishes, Wout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - De Natris Consult Raaphorst 33 Tel: +31 648388813 2352 KJ Leiderdorp Skype: wout.de.natris <a href="mailto:denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl">denatrisconsult@hotmail.nl</a> http://www.denatrisconsult.nl Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com <div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net > Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:00:02 +0100 > > Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to > anti-abuse-wg@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@ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > anti-abuse-wg-owner@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: Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 (Ronald F. Guilmette) > 2. Re: Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 (Ronald F. Guilmette) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:41:53 -0800 > From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Message-ID: <55478.1362638513@server1.tristatelogic.com> > > > In message <51371EFA.3030502@heanet.ie>, > Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote: > > >> P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing > >> list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are > >> not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.) > > > >I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree > > Then why hasn't anything been done? > > I reported a set of blatantly, provably, outrageously fradulent networks > here over six weeks ago now. As far as I can tell, they are all still > on the books (in the RIPE data base) and all still operating with total > and utter impunity... still announcing routes to innumerable IPv4 blocks > registered to innumerable utterly fradulent and fictitious entities, all > of which were transparently and deliberately created, out of whole cloth, > by a single party or entity, entirely and only as a ruse to trick RIPE NCC > out of huge quantities of IPv4 addresses so that those could then be sub- > leased to several different snowshoe spammers. (None of this is speculation. > I have the evidence that clearly supports every charge I've just made, and > would have provided it to anyone who asked, but apparently nobody, either > here or elsewhere, gives or gave enough of a damn to even ask to see any > of it.) > > RIPE NCC knows all about this stuff, and they haven't lifted a finger > in over six weeks to do squat about any of it. And I daresay that it > now seems abundantly likely that we will see action out of the College > of Cardinals in Rome long before we see any out of RIPE NCC on this issue. > > Personally, I think this indefensible and abject inaction makes a mockery > of you, me, this working group, the Internet as a whole, and every person > who, like me, has invested even a moment of their time, effort, or intellectual > abilities to try to ferret out and then report these kinds of outrageously > crooked operations to ``responsible authorities''... and I use the term > loosely. I mean what's the point? I could have more profitably invested > my time and energy in rearranging the contents of my sock drawer. (And I > doubt that this point will be lost on any others who might likewise be > tempted to work to make the Internet a better place for all. Why bother? > It won't be appreciated and more to the point, it won't have any effect.) > > I see only two possibilities. Either what I reported is not actually and > formally considered to be ``abuse'', or else _rectifying_ ``abuse'', even > of the most blatant, fradulent, wasteful, and destructive kind, is now > provably not on anybody's official TO-DO, list. You claim that it is > not the former. If it is the latter, then all activities of this working > group, past, present, and future, may, in my opinion, rightfully be derided > as being nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation and bureaucratic > mumbo jumbo yielding absolutely nothing of value. > > If the point of this WG is merely to _talk_ about network abuse, then I'm > confident that it will go down in the history books as having been a great > success. > > >so we're good. > > Speak for yourself please. > > To quote the Lone Ranger's trusty (American-)Indian sidekick Tonto ``What > do you mean WE kimo sabe?'' > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:51:08 -0800 > From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Message-ID: <55540.1362639068@server1.tristatelogic.com> > > > In message <51372538.60604@hovland.cx>, > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote: > > > On 03/06/13 11:48, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> Ronald, > >> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote the following on 05/03/2013 20:36: > >>> I'd like to just reiterate my view that all other activities of this WG > >>> will be utterly fruitless until such time as a reasonable, rational, and > >>> generally accepted definition of "abuse" is in hand. > >> > >> I genuinely don't think it will be useful to spend time on this. I > >> think an attempt to get a consensual definition of abuse would take > >> the whole of the session in Dublin and every session thereafter and > >> after all that time, I still don't think we would have got anywhere. > >> If the rest of the WG disagrees with me, then we can raise it, but if > >> n = the number of people in the WG, I fear we would have n + 1 > >> definitions. > > > >I am pretty sure it will take until the end of the world to agree on a > >definition. Perhaps even longer. > > > "And when the broken hearted people, living in the world agree, > there will be an answer, let it be." > -- Paul McCartney > > > > > End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5 > ******************************************** </div> </div></body> </html>