[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
No No
no0484985 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 16:02:18 CEST 2020
*>> You're assuming that the RIPE NCC has a right to tell organisations what they can or cannot do with their addresses.* It's not *their* addresses, it's RIPE's addresses, which they allocated. It's not *their* resources that are abused, it's the peer enabled relationship that carries their bull crap across networks. If they want to set up a computer in a field surrounded by cows, and it sends spam to itself or DDoS itself, that's fine. ---- On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:57 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 13:42: > > RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order to > > prohibit use of resources that it allocates for such behaviour. > > You're putting the car before the horse. You're assuming that the RIPE > NCC has a right to tell organisations what they can or cannot do with > their addresses. Why do you think they do? And under what > circumstances? And if they did have this right, why would you think > that this right wouldn't come with the obligation to enforce this, and > to assume liability in the case where they couldn't enforce it? Serge > is correct to state that rights always come with responsibilities - > they're different sides of the same coin. > > This is what concerns me about the proposals that have been put in front > of AAWG - there's very little acknowledgement on the part of the > proposers that there would be substantial downstream consequences if > they were adopted. > > Nick > > > Wearing a T-shirt, shorts and flip flops is perfectly legal and yet you > > can be refused entry into a fancy restaurant if you wear them. > > > > Nobody gets to sue the restaurant for refusing admission by claiming > > that tshirts and flip flops are perfectly legal attire, and even nudity > > is legal in some parts of Europe (German topless and nude beaches say). > > > > --srs > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200501/80bb0a39/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]