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 :) <div class="gmail_quote">On 11-May-2014 10:52 pm, "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <<a href="mailto:mailer-daemon@googlemail.com">mailer-daemon@googlemail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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: <a href="mailto:ripe-lists@c4inet.net">ripe-lists@c4inet.net</a> 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 <a href="http://c4inet.net" target="_blank">c4inet.net</a> by <a href="http://mail.c4inet.net" target="_blank">mail.c4inet.net</a>. [2a02:2078:100:dead:d00d::25]. The error that the other server returned was: 450 4.1.1 <<a href="mailto:ripe-lists@c4inet.net">ripe-lists@c4inet.net</a>>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table ----- Original message ----- DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>; 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: <<a href="mailto:20140509145826.GA87032@cilantro.c4inet.net">20140509145826.GA87032@cilantro.c4inet.net</a>> References: <<a href="mailto:536CDE63.6070605@heanet.ie">536CDE63.6070605@heanet.ie</a>> <<a href="mailto:20140509145826.GA87032@cilantro.c4inet.net">20140509145826.GA87032@cilantro.c4inet.net</a>> Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 21:48:46 +0530 Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:CAArzuos%2BCz0jcoXaiqo3Mjwjo09espso4%2BaPeTYkp0gk6u9hQA@mail.gmail.com">CAArzuos+Cz0jcoXaiqo3Mjwjo09espso4+aPeTYkp0gk6u9hQA@mail.gmail.com</a>> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Working Group Charter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a href="mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com">ops.lists@gmail.com</a>> To: Sascha Luck <<a href="mailto:ripe-lists@c4inet.net">ripe-lists@c4inet.net</a>> Cc: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>, Brian Nisbet <<a href="mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@heanet.ie</a>> 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" <<a href="mailto:ripe-lists@c4inet.net">ripe-lists@c4inet.net</a>> 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 > > </blockquote></div>