<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> omg i just wrote a protocol of which the deamon crashes if people send "CRASH" to it... let's make a blacklist of all ips that ever sent CRASH to it and call it 'abuse'.. lol. that's basically your argument, except for smtp not even crashing, it's functioning as specified if it's broadcasting 'spam'. deal with it.. btw what are you... communists... (probably... uk cghq... lol) ? also keep 'blacklists' of mail companies that can't push advertisements into your mailbox? lol now as for this 'commercial branch' of spamhaus you would be working for... would that be: steve linford and myra peters avinuda de colle sur loup, colle sur loup, france steve linford and myra peters viola 13 puerto d' andratx spain that non-profit BUT NOT ALLOWED TO TRADE ltd which has no assets at all? the commercial ltd, which lacks office addresses and a trade register entry in switserland, or one of the 5 IBC's and other offshores pumping CGHQ's cash into this great censorship tool. btw you still never got a handelsregistereintrag in switserland... conclusion: you can't 'work' anywhere, as none of them can actually legally trade and pay you. (except for the vague offshores) CGHQ better go and do the homework on their black ops pretending to 'fight spam and abuse' and in the meanwhile just enforce uk trade policy down the throats of non-uk-nationals... so at least the fucking paperwork checks out. lolol. (we do a slightly better job at that in our organisations, i must say our ltds usually DO have a mailbox that works ;) all lirs: just nullroute the fuckers... i think we can agree we have all had it with 'spamhaus' ay.. <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 10:53, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:6bfa5520-c537-b605-b2d4-29b5acd85f89@xs4all.nl" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <div class="moz-forward-container"> -------- Forwarded Message -------- <table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th> <td>Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RBL policy</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th> <td>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:51:40 +0000</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th> <td>HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:svenk@xs4all.nl"><svenk@xs4all.nl></a></td> </tr> <tr> <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Organization: </th> <td>Republic CyberBunker</td> </tr> <tr> <th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th> <td>Simon Forster <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simon-lists@ldml.com"><simon-lists@ldml.com></a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <pre>On 30 ينا, 2017 ص 09:39, Simon Forster wrote: >> On 30 Jan 2017, at 06:13, ox <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andre@ox.co.za"><andre@ox.co.za></a> wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> >> May I please solicit some comments about Abuse Block lists >> (Without detracting from RFC 5782 and RFC 6471 or : >> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409</a> ) >> >> Firstly, the background for the start of this thread is simply: As the >> use of machine learning technology is now also applied and adapted for >> the use of cyber criminals (including spammers, scammers, etc) the >> rules and what is socially acceptable is and has changed. Global >> politics, protectionism, nationalism and the other 'isms' are also >> causing change. >> >> Considering that DNSBL tech is "reactive" (after he abuse) > This statement appears to be exclusionary — and is one often levelled against DNSBLs. All DNSBLs are not wholly reactive. > > Firstly, one needs to acknowledge that all DNSBLs are not they same. > > Secondly, some listings in some DNSBLs are proactive. i.e. Made before abuse is seen. As I work for the commercial arm of Spamhaus, I know their offerings quite well and can confidently state that some of the Spamhaus block lists contain proactive and/or precautionary listings. > > to be exact: the criminal organisation spamhaus their illegal blacklists effected some 20 million ips on our last scan of their entire database contents. (although that's a bit hard to do, as named kept crashing running 24 cores of gethostbyname() on 10ge , so we may have missed a few million here and there) at a simultanious portscan of the entire ipv4 internet, it turned out there were only some 200000 smtp servers left however. > that leads to the conclusion that 99% of the listings is purely there for blackmail purposes, and has nothing to do with your silly old SMTP protocol AT ALL. the only reason to list those others is to put pressure on people to 1: spend manhours on interacting with the (non-sollicited) spamhaus 'organisation' and 2: illegally force people into breach of contract with their clients. listing sales department networks of transit carriers to breach national carriers and connected hosting farms into breach of contract with a customer, of which steve linford does not like the CONTENT on the website, kinda, fucks up statistics ay. face it: smtp is dead, and needs no 'protection' at all.. also ip addresses identify nodes in a network, not people. also: forcing people to contact spamhaus, causes manhours to be spent on communication, which is extortion, as we have no contractual relation with spamhaus whatsoever, so trying to force carriers and isps into communication with them, is a crime. (although only punishable by 3 months in .nl ;) the 'we don't block anything' argument doesn't go. spamhaus advertises the fact that they have influence on roughly 1/3rd of mail delivery so they know damn well that by entering an ip on their list, of a sales department of a transit carrier, like they did with at least: tata and tiscali, that they are deliberately obstructing data communications and therefore violating any and all computer sabotage acts. as for the way in which they advertise their BGP feed. let's just say that we have BGP feeds as well. and we will use them AGAINST spamhaus again. (it's called an internet exchange you dummy ;) "we advise our peers to nullroute traffic to spamhaus or give a preferred route to one of our dns servers which always returns 127.0.0.2" :P we still kinda had it with their fuckery. they simply should roll over and die. if not they should get some help. fun fact: with all the 110 competing 'auto list / auto-de-list' dnsbls in the world, there never was -any- issue whatsoever... having cghq jew linford crying in the jew press that we would be 'spammers' may have worked to spread slander... however fact of the matter is that smtp is loong dead and we usually don't even read it, sometimes don't have servers for it, and in any case, blocked port 25 on all our networks by default ever since 2004. lolol. (who the FUCK still uses smtp anyway, and why the hell would 'abuse' of it be an excuse to disconnect paying customers - if any - as we certainly never could FIND any "spammers" that could afford our fees ;) what we see here is a CGHQ JTRIG operation (Spamhaus) trying to enforce UK laws and trade policy upon the rest of the internet, it has nothing to do with 'abuse' spamhaus is a political operation run by the jews at CGHQ. stophaus is a colation of cyberdivisions of armies fighting them. china, russia, and the republic cyberbunker have every right in the world to just nuke linford off the surface of this planet. and that's probably just what we should have done in the first fucking place. > I imagine SURBL does likewise. Other block lists probably have similar policies / inputs. > Simon > > >> The block time policies of RBLs >> *********************************** >> There are two main types of block lists: No automatic removal and >> automatic removal >> >> Is the policy to auto de-list after a period of time, still accurate? >> >> Considering the change in abuse patterns and technology, should the >> block times be increased or de-creased? >> >> Does society require more specialist non auto de-list DNSBLs? >> (Would it be helpful to law enforcement to have a "child pornography" >> dnsbl? or a phish dnsbl? - or is the reactive time to high in order >> for dynamic ipv4? - but on ipv6 allocations to devices could be more >> 'permanent'? etc) >> >> Andre >> > </pre> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html>