[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?
Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 03:12:49 CEST 2012
A lot of antispam laws (eg: australia, canada etc) use the "country link" concept If the spam was originated from an IP in australia, paid for by an australian, **received by an australian**, then australian law has jurisdiction over it and the competent authority (telecom regulator / law enforcement) can decide to follow up on the case So just because spam isn't illegal in, say, romania might be moot On 3/30/12, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32:02PM -0700, Vijay Eranti (??? ??????????????? > ???????????????) wrote: >> i agree with suresh - ripe has been handing over /15 or even /13 lately to >> criminals who know how to use high bandwidth pipes to spam like crazy. I >> am > > Are these criminals because a judge said so, or because you do not like > their business practices? > > This is a serious question. > > (Don't get me wrong: I'm not defending spammers, but I *do* like the fact > that the RIPE NCC operates inside the legal framework of the countries > it's serving) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)