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

On Aug 31, 2016 02:22 AM Andre Coetzee wrote:
> Just this very long thread and all the confusion about what is actually
> Internet abuse and what is not - serves as plain and evident proof that
> even this, an actual anti-abuse WG, desperately needs a definition of
> Internet Abuse. Civil society is simply ignorant of their own
> requirement(s).

First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not have mocked.
I do not know whether the members of the group desperately needs a definition of Internet Abuse. But as a member of civil society, non-technical in IT, end user of the Internet and real victim of abuse, I can guarantee you that we need desperately is an ethical and honest behavior on the part of ISPs. The rest has not the least importance.

For me it is not clear your goal. But it is not of my business. And I congratulate you again. But if you intend to use the technical definition of Internet Abuse to decide whether the complaint of a victim of abuse should or should not put a domain on the blocklist, your group will not have credibility. You will be thwarting a real victim of abuse to have his case met due to a technicality.

> 2. I am also ac at spamcop.net - SpamCop is also a community although 
> operated graciously and ethically by Cisco. We are all honorable,
> ethical and honest people - I challenge you in public to tell me the
> name or email address of one SpamCop member that is not that?

You continue underestimating people. Sorry to disappoint you. I threw a bait - spamcop - and you bit. ;) Regarding your challenge I will make much more than you asked for. I will paste below the only two messages between me and a spamcop member. And these messages occurred only because I was forced to complain about the SpamCop by copying for Cisco's Privacy Mailer.
All my messages addressed to support at spamcop.net correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical people. I was throwing away my time because the reports, via spamcop, would never come to the sources of scam. To solve this I appealed to Cisco: (follow the dates - had to insult to be attended)

From: SpamCop/Richard 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 5:48 PM
To: marilson.mapa at gmail.com 
Subject: Re: Fw: Spamcop error

Thank you for the information.  A cache refresh has changed the
reporting addresses used for 212.47.224.0/19


Richard
Please include previous correspondence with replies
.:|:.:|:.
********************************************
From: Marilson 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:34 AM
To: privacy at cisco.com 
Subject: Fw: Spamcop error

Thank you for nothing, arrogants of shit...
 *******************************************
From: Marilson 
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:11 PM
To: privacy at cisco.com 
Subject: Spamcop error

Gentlemen, your subsidiary Spamcop is incurring a mistake repeatedly. I can not find a way or formulary to contact spamcop and explain where the error is.
I appeal to you to resolve this problem:

I managed that a known Brazilian spammer, who uses spam to practice embezzlement, be put out of 2 or 3 ISPs. Now he is using a new provider - Tiscali.fr - with the IP 212.47.244.217.

To this IP the address is abuse at proxad.net

To tiscali.fr, a subsidiary of tiscali.it, is abuse at it.tiscali.com

Spamcop insists on using abuse at tiscali.fr

This address does not exist. If this is not corrected the criminal spammer will not be denounced.
Thanks
Marilson
*******************************************
As requests for corrections continued to be ignored, I decided to check the send to the correctly identified sources. Now the disappointment was absolute. No complaint was sent. More than a year doing complaints and nothing was sent. I decided upending the tea table and treat them with the respect they deserved:

From: Marilson 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:55 PM
To: SpamCop/Richard 
Cc: privacy at cisco.com ; guardian.readers at theguardian.com ; The Wall Street Journal ; spam at uce.gov ; gmail-abuse at google.com 
Subject: Re: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy..

...to help me identify the source of spam ?!? I don’t need help of anyone to identify the source of spam. Several times I corrected your wrong source. I do this better than your company. What I can not do is block a domain. Yes, I opted to send a copy of each of these reports to my own address AND FOR THOSE NETWORKS REFERENCED IN SCAN.

> You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because we were sending you mail, mail you sent yourself. 

Are you crazy? A half-wit? Is that your excuse for your criminal behavior? I copied to Cisco’s Privacy Mailer because you never sent any of my complaints for those networks referenced. During an entire year, liar idiot. Countless hours were lost because of you, rascal. You must to learn to respect the people.

(follow various insults that I can not repeat at this working group)

Marilson
*****************************************************************
From: SpamCop/Richard 
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14 PM
To: Marilson 
Subject: Re: Fw: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy..

I think you missed the point of my first writing.

SpamCop has been here for the last year to help you identify the source
of spam you receive and help you send a complaint to the parties that
are responsible for those networks sending the spam.

As part of your settings, you opted to send a copy of each of these
reports to your own address.  This was an email from  you (your SpamCop
account) to you.  You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because
we were sending you mail, mail you sent yourself.

SpamCop operates very independently of Cisco.  The privacy office is in
place to ensure we operate according to the privacy policy published by
Cisco and to investigate where there is an accusation or suspicion the
privacy policy may have been breached...
***************************************************************
Well Andre, Richard is not a honorable, ethical and honest guy.
You can use the argument you wish to explain these facts. But I will not discuss it, in this group, with you.
My goal was to denounce spamcop here. Thank you. My disputes with SpamCop and Cisco will continue but in other forums. But if you want to discuss the tricks of Netcraft... I am all ears!

Marilson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160831/53065ad5/attachment.html>