[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/AAWG charter (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)

In message <201302120818.58387.peter at hk.ipsec.se>, 
peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se> wrote:

>> (I believe that I saw it asserted here earlier that, even as of this late
>> date, there is no general agreement, within this group or within the
>> RIPE membership as a whole as to what things might or do constitute
>> "abuse of the Internet".  If that is correct, then offhand I would have
>> to say that arriving at some common understanding of that term could be,
>> would be, and should be the first order of business for this group, above
>> all else.  I mean what's the point of having an "anti abuse" group if
>> nobody even knows for sure what "abuse" is?)
>
>Wrong !
>Sending Spam ( unsolicited massmail ) has been unacceptable since 1985 and 
>was
>once punished with "Internet Deathpenalty"( isolation ).
>
>Today Spam seems to be ignored since we pay dearly for mechanical ways of f
>iltering,
>with varying success. Still Spam is not even a crime in many countries, and
> in
>others like sweden it's not really investigated nor punished.
>
>Spam is in addition to marketing purposes sometimes used as a vehicle for f
>raud or virus
>but it's still Spam.
>
>Why don't we do something against it ???


I am not at all sure who, exactly, you were adressing your comments to.

If you had intended them for me... well... all I can say is that you
are attempting to sell your point of view to the Wrong Guy.  Personally,
I was already convinced quite a long time ago that spam is an awful
scourge, and I've personally done much over the past 18 years to try
to thwart it, and those who send it... more than most, I do believe.


Regards,
rfg