<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">It would be interesting if a large number of people who actually work for the security / infosec / abuse teams of various ripe members were to attend the aawg meetings instead of a clutch of mostly IP / dns / network people. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">That won�t take away the impact of organisations that don�t want to do any abuse handling at all or the IP / dns people that turn up, but might mitigate their pernicious effect on this process to an extent.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-ios-signature">
<div style="direction: ltr;">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Fi Shing <phishing@storey.xxx><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div> </div>
<div>>> Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I just do not understand how anyone on this list (other than a criminal or a business owner that wants to reduce over heads by abolishing an employee who has to sit and monitor an abuse desk) could be talking about making it easier for abuse to flourish.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is idiotic and is not ad hominem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This list is filled with people who argue for weeks, perhaps months, about the catastrophic world ending dangers of making an admin verify an abuse address ONCE a year .... and then someone says "let's abolish abuse desk all together" and these idiots
emerge from the wood work like the termites that they are and there's no resistance?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The good news is that nothing talked about on this list is ever implemented, so .. talk away you criminals.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left:2px solid #C2C2C2; padding-left:3px; margin-left:4px">
--------- Original Message ---------
<div>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<br>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com><br>
Date: 1/16/20 11:47 am<br>
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br>
<br>
In message <20200115155949.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.e548b98006.mailapi@<br>
email19.asia.godaddy.com>, "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx> wrote:<br>
<br>
>That is the most stupid thing i've read on this list.<br>
<br>
Well, I think you shouldn't be quite so harsh in your judgement. It is<br>
not immediately apparent that you have been on the list for all that long.<br>
So perhaps you should stick around for awhile longer before making such<br>
comments. If you do, I feel sure that there will be any number of<br>
stupider things that may come to your attention, including even a few<br>
from your's truly.<br>
<br>
Best not to judge the race until it has been fully run.<br>
<br>
>Which criminal is paying you to say this nonsense, because no ordinary person<br>
>that has ever received a spam email would ever say such crap.<br>
<br>
I would also offer the suggestion that such inartful commentary, being as<br>
it is, ad hominem, is not at all likely to advance your agenda. It may<br>
have felt good, but I doubt that you have changed a single mind, other<br>
than perhaps one or two who will now be persuaded to take the opposing<br>
position, relative to whatever it was that you had hoped to achieve.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
rfg<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>