[anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse

On Friday 17 August 2012 08.50, Frank Gadegast wrote:
> 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.

A disagree.

spam is a well defined thing. It's unsolcitated commercial email.

What is lacking in many countries is a legal definition and
sanctions for sending spam.

We ought to be able to fight spam ( as an international problem) even if some
countries does not have specific laws against it.


> 
> (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
You must diffrentiate between acts illegal in some country and spam. It's
2 completeley different things.

Note that even person-to-person messages containg for instance childporn
is illegal in many countries, but it is not spam. 

> 
> 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
> 
Now you have invented a "kitchen-variant" of definition os spam which most
people disagrees with. Spam has nothing to do with any receiver 
beeing abused, it's only unsolicited commercial email(s).

> 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.
Whats really annoying is that spam is delivered with stolen resources ( abusing
peoples computers and tricking them in delivering their spews). So
with spam there is two victims. the person who's resources is unknowingly
abused to send spam , and the recipient that has to pay for receiving spam.

> 
> 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 ...
Good day sir, my name is peter håkanson, which clearly was in my .sig.

> 
> I also feel abused by discussing the same things all
> over again ...
If nothing happens then the same issues will come up again and 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
> only using facts, and thats making me even more
> angry, and according to my definition:
> I would call them spam ...

Then please unsubscribe. Remember that thisis a opt-in list.
> 


btw 
> 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
> ======================================================================
> 

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )