[anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse

lists at help.org wrote:
>  >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse
>

Hello Mr. Lists,

well, you kind of forgot the discussion about this topic
you started a while ago ... its all in the archives.


first, this list changed its name from anti-spam-wg to
anti-abuse-wg, guess why ?
spam defines the problem on the senders side, and your right,
you cannot define spam because of different personal and legal
definitions, you can only use it as a more general term,
most people simply know what it is.

(you can try and defined "live". I will be happy, if you could,
  most people cannot and also have different definitions,
  but most people also have the same ideas, when they talk
  about "live". You can also try and define "red" ...)

second, we are talking about abuse here
abuse is clearly definable, it happens on the receivers
side, its either abusing somebody personally and could
have various reasons or legal background, defined by different
countries law, organisation rules, whatever ...

third, the same email could be abusive in one country or
when received by one person or organization or
whatever entity and could be ok with others

fourth, there is NO clear definition of abuse at the receivers
side because of those different "feelings" or laws, but this one:
ITS ABUSING HIM

Therefore the definition of spam is pretty easy:
a spam email is an unwanted email that abusing the receiver

Its disturbing him, tricking him, forcing him to do illegal
things, forcing him to buy things, he does not want, using
his resources in a way, he did not intent, using his time,
forcing him to learn and use techniques to get rid of it
or whatever.
He feels abused.

And thats it.

And this group simply tries to make it easy to prevent abuse,
if the abused one wants it ...

> I am aware of this but it simply uses another unidentified term "spam."
> Using one undefined term to define another undefined term is not a
> standard. As an official spokesperson for a major security company you
> should know that. This is why most of these abuse groups look like they
> are run out of someone's Mother's basement. I think some people posting
> large signatures for a 3-word reply is spam so should they be
> blacklisted because I have that opinion? Should they be labeled an

Well, I personally feel abused by people joining a discussion
without telling their name, dont reveal their background and
kind of hide. I feel uncomfortable with it, because I
do not get enough context to argue.
Furthermore I think, its rude ...

I also feel abused by discussing the same things all
over again ...

And so: I do not want most of your comments and mails,
they are unwanted and unsolicited to me personally,
they are using my time and energy to read and answer,
they are making me angry, because they are rude and
thats stopping me from arguing without fellings and
only using facts, and thats making me even more
angry, and according to my definition:
I would call them spam ...

And you can come with whatever argument, it will
not count, cause you already abused me and you
cannot take that back.

> "abuser" or "spammer" or some other undefined term?
>
>
>


Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================

-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================