[anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] On +1s and Policy Awareness
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ac
ac at main.me
Thu Apr 4 07:57:43 CEST 2019
aaargh! now you have gone and done it, look what you have now forced me to do, again: +1 (roflmao) On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:50:56 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh. > > +1. > > On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac" > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of ac at main.me> wrote: > > > +1 > > (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing > to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would > venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there > are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that > some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely > that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be > one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will > therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add > than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement > thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, > because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I > would appreciate that being pointed out to myself) > > On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the > > world over - even among the larger community of network > > security folks. > > > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and > > has spoken up during the discussion. > > > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking > > will be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel > > Vraštiak" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of > > vrastiak at itself.cz> wrote: > > > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my > > support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can > > say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is > > that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer > > technical solution instead of policy. > > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also > > think that it could make some small difference (in a good way). > > The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and > > impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > > > -- > > > > Pavel > > > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas > > > via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there > > >> wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese > > >> participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of > > >> discrimination against new participants on this WG. > > > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone > > > here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other > > > nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an > > > insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick. > > > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less > > >> people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools > > >> against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, > > >> right?), i would also like to see a much larger number > > >> of people involved! > > > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed > > > in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should > > > make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, > > > everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in > > > Heaven. > > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real > > >> persons, then please Google away. :-) > > > > > > Well, that gives me: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as > > > that implies fictitious entities with some commercial > > > interest behind it. > > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always > > > welcome, the more know about this the better. > > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't > > > think their support should carry much weight. I trust the > > > chairs to consider this, of course. > > > > > > > > > rgds, > > > SL > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > >> > > >>> All > > >>> > > >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > > >>> > > >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this > > >>> list who have posted one line messages in support of > > >>> the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> > > >>> Michele > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Mr Michele Neylon > > >>> Blacknight Solutions > > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains > > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ > > >>> https://blacknight.blog/ > > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > > >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > > >>> ------------------------------- > > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside > > >>> Business Park,Sleaty > > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > > >>> 370845 > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] On +1s and Policy Awareness
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]