[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6

About Ronald F. Guilmette and Angel Fernandez.
Guilmette, forgive me if I wrongly interpreted your concerns (I use Google 
translator).

Anyway, I see that both, you and Fernandez, are agree with my point of 
view - the focus should be directed to the ISP internet service providers. 
It worries me to know that you have done this for several years.

I decided to report spam and phishing just two months ago. And it is already 
clear to me that the bad providers don’t care about the complaints. My 
complaints always have copies to spam at uce.gov and crime.internet at dpf.gob.br 
(Federal Police of Brazil). Nothing happens!

I think you have been very polite when classify these companies - "deep 
reluctance to accept any rules or regulations" - "Wild West" - "driven by 
quasi-religious faith in laisses-faire" - "testosterone". I would call it 
sociopathy and greed.

I’m a liberal and I put the individual and meritocracy above the State and 
any company. And therefore, the right to privacy of the individual is 
inalienable. The companies, Enzu standard, use this rhetoric of 
self-regulation, freedom to private initiative, to hide their arbitrariness 
against the individual.

In my last complaint I changed tactics. My complaints are copied to The 
Economist and The Wall Street Journal. Timely I will send a dossier to this 
media. Maybe someone there decides to question the procedures of these 
companies...

Angel from LaVanguardia on line – Technology Department – considering the 
hatred that this type of e-mail marketing has aroused around the world do 
you think it's possible that magazine or newspaper can be interested in the 
subject?
Regards
Marilson

-----Mensagem Original----- 
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:00 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at 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 at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at 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: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4 (Ronald F. Guilmette)
   2. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
      (anfernandez at lavanguardia.es)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:28:33 -0700
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
Message-ID: <6682.1440451713 at server1.tristatelogic.com>


In message <48A6D44E0E4B43369169FEE5EB478058 at SuperPC>,
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:

>... But keeping the focus in the domain registrant it is like
>insisting blindly on a dead-end road.
>...
>{... bad stuff about Enzu snipped...}
>...
>With providers of that kind, spammers is a lesser evil. I understand that
>the focus should be directed to companies that provide the means and tools
>for the commission of that crime.

I wish that I understood what any of this had to do with the xortify.com
project.  I do not see ANY connection, either to that project, or to my
questions about it.

Regarding Enzu, yes, they have been on my personal bad list for a very
long time.  But they are hardly alone, and certainly not unique.  There
are many other providers that are just as bad, or worse, when it comes to
harboring spammers and other net-miscreants.  (In at least one case
that I researched, the guy who owned the ISP had set up another, parallel
company, which was itself dedicated to snowshoe spamming... using the
IP address blocks of the "legitimate" ISP operation, of course.  But
beyond that, there are quite certainly companies, located in China,
the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and other places that are quite entirely
happy to allow any and all manner of hacking and other forms of criminality
on their networks.)

Regarding your suggestion that anti-abuse efforts should focus on the
net's many abuse-tolerant providers, rather than on individual spammers
and other kinds of individual naughty fellows, I can only say that I am
in 100% agreement with you on this, and that I have been saying this
exact thing to anyone and everyone who would listen for many years now.
(In particular, I have repeatedly urged various Spamhaus people to use
their domain-based blacklist to blacklist the main domain names of
various bad ISPs/NSPs... as a way of focusing the attention of these
providers on the abundant problems on their respective networks.  But
my requests/suggestions along these lines have fallen on deaf ears.)

Lastly, an important point that I believe you may not have grasped is
that calling for any sort of disiplinary actions directed at ISPs and/or
NSPs is not at all likely to find a receptive audience here, on this
mailing list.  The majority of subscribers to this list are likely to
be executives or employees of exactly such companies, and even if they
believe strongly that their companies are among the good ones, there
is... and always has been... a deep reluctance on the part of the
entire Internet connectivity industry to accept any sort of rules or
regulations, even if they serve the common good, and even if they are
created and promoted from within the industry itself.  The connectivity
industry is still the "Wild West", and nobody in it wants anybody else
telling them what to do, or not do.  This pervasive attitude is certainly
driven by an almost religious faith in laissez-faire everything, but
also, in equal measures, by pride (both personal and in some cases
national), and testosterone.  None of these factors is going away any
time soon.


Regards,
rfg



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:20:16 +0000
From: <anfernandez at lavanguardia.es>
To: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1440496801.16534.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Guilleme, Marilson,  completely agree.

Almost all the people in this list is only concern on its own business and, 
as several of them are working for ISP's and are in the good boys side, 
they are not interested on changing the rules. But my point of view a few 
bad guys are doing great harm to the use and distribution of IP addresses as 
the only remedy to defend from those few bad guys is to apply through the 
courts blocking the IP addresses used for illegal purposes. These blockages 
occur at the country level layer, hopefully soon it will be possible to the 
European Union level. The end result is increasingly IP blocks affected by 
blockages in different countries or regions, and therefore not reusable.

I think the good guys have to think about it...

?ngel

-----Mensaje original-----
De: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] En nombre de 
Ronald F. Guilmette
Enviado el: lunes, 24 de agosto de 2015 23:29
Para: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 4


In message <48A6D44E0E4B43369169FEE5EB478058 at SuperPC>,
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:

>... But keeping the focus in the domain registrant it is like insisting
>blindly on a dead-end road.
>...
>{... bad stuff about Enzu snipped...}
>...
>With providers of that kind, spammers is a lesser evil. I understand
>that the focus should be directed to companies that provide the means
>and tools for the commission of that crime.

I wish that I understood what any of this had to do with the xortify.com 
project.  I do not see ANY connection, either to that project, or to my 
questions about it.

Regarding Enzu, yes, they have been on my personal bad list for a very long 
time.  But they are hardly alone, and certainly not unique.  There are many 
other providers that are just as bad, or worse, when it comes to harboring 
spammers and other net-miscreants.  (In at least one case that I researched, 
the guy who owned the ISP had set up another, parallel company, which was 
itself dedicated to snowshoe spamming... using the IP address blocks of the 
"legitimate" ISP operation, of course.  But beyond that, there are quite 
certainly companies, located in China, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and 
other places that are quite entirely happy to allow any and all manner of 
hacking and other forms of criminality on their networks.)

Regarding your suggestion that anti-abuse efforts should focus on the net's 
many abuse-tolerant providers, rather than on individual spammers and other 
kinds of individual naughty fellows, I can only say that I am in 100% 
agreement with you on this, and that I have been saying this exact thing to 
anyone and everyone who would listen for many years now.
(In particular, I have repeatedly urged various Spamhaus people to use their 
domain-based blacklist to blacklist the main domain names of various bad 
ISPs/NSPs... as a way of focusing the attention of these providers on the 
abundant problems on their respective networks.  But my requests/suggestions 
along these lines have fallen on deaf ears.)

Lastly, an important point that I believe you may not have grasped is that 
calling for any sort of disiplinary actions directed at ISPs and/or NSPs is 
not at all likely to find a receptive audience here, on this mailing list. 
The majority of subscribers to this list are likely to be executives or 
employees of exactly such companies, and even if they believe strongly that 
their companies are among the good ones, there is... and always has been... 
a deep reluctance on the part of the entire Internet connectivity industry 
to accept any sort of rules or regulations, even if they serve the common 
good, and even if they are created and promoted from within the industry 
itself.  The connectivity industry is still the "Wild West", and nobody in 
it wants anybody else telling them what to do, or not do.  This pervasive 
attitude is certainly driven by an almost religious faith in laissez-faire 
everything, but also, in equal measures, by pride (both personal and in some 
cases national), and testosterone.  None of these factors is going away any 
time soon.


Regards,
rfg




End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 6
********************************************