[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final

On Aug 29, 2016 Andre Coetzee wrote:
> 2. I do not understand Marilson's objections - apparently if someone
> steals your pc it is Internet abuse, I eventually thought he meant that
> the computer was stolen and used to send spam, --> but the definition
> works for that, he agreed the definition stands..., 
> but then he seems to say that it does not? for an unknown and 
> non specific reason except that it may or may not include defining
> "theft"

Definitions Endless
Andre, you continue making a mockery of me trying to hide a bad example of abuse  chosen by you. The stolen computer was invented by you. To justify your concerns you said to Gunther that a stolen computer is not abuse. At first it was just an unfortunate choice of words. I tried to show that an infected computer and used without the owner's consent, is being stolen. You could have said - I used an inappropriate phrase - but your pride prevented you from doing so and preferred to ridicule my bad English saying that stolen computer is a physical act. What forced me to present several definitions in the use of the theft word. And continue distorting the facts to justify a stupid phrase.

I think this group no one will give you the examples of abuse that you request. Do you know why? Because it's an affront to anyone's intelligence set the obvious. Maybe you need a technical definition of Internet Abuse for use on your server that receives spam complaint. But never dare say to a victim of abuse that he is wrong and it is not abuse. If you do you will bury your company. Nobody needs of technical definitions of Internet abuse. 

I'm hoping that your company becomes larger than SpamCop. SpamCop-Cisco is outdated and has acted partially protecting some companies. Its software is limited to search the records in Whois, which are often false or incomplete. My research to identify all those involved in abuse is better, bigger and more correct than the SpamCop. As a rule I even inform  the owner's name of subdomain under protection service of DomainsByProxy-Godaddy, CloudFlare, Whois Privacy Protect-Rightside, etc.

On Aug 29, 2016 Suresh wrote:
> So far this subthread has been a case of the blind leading the blind, but Marilson is indeed correct here.

Suresh, I am not blind yet. But as Diogenes of Sinope, in Ancient Greece, I try to find, with my lantern, an honest ISP. After hundreds of complaints I can tell you that I count on the fingers of one hand the ISPs that have acted correctly. It is noteworthy that there were many discussions, many fights, but never, I never had to discuss whether it was abuse or not. ;)

Marilson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160831/016d616d/attachment.html>