This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hal ponton
hal at buzcom.net
Fri Sep 2 16:00:07 CEST 2016
Hi All, I think this is getting a little abusive here, can the tone be brought down a little to something a little more acceptable please? Regards, Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer Buzcom / FibreWiFi > Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com> > 2 September 2016 at 14:46 > On Sep 01, 2016 07:12 Andre Coetzee wrote: > > It is very clear what and who what you are Marilson. > > completely overestimate your own technical skills and abilities. > > > technically ignorant > > extremely belligerent > > how ignorant you are > > > approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works > > You obviously have a lot to learn > > reading what I am typing and improving yourself (mamma mia, without > smiley ;) this phrase sound too bad) > Hmm...well, I won't stoop so low. And am I the extremely belligerent?!? > On my last message I wrote: > >> > First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not > have mocked. > Your comments were full of arrogance and veiled insults and now the > insults are clear and direct. What happened? No one can call you a > hypocrite, right? > You took sentences of my message and evaluated out of context. Another > sight of you – dishonesty. > I will repeat because you were dishonest: > All my messages addressed to support at spamcop.net > <mailto: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. I needed to help them so I do > not waste time with my complaints. To solve this I appealed to Cisco. > Cisco or spamcop did nothing. I waited 30 days and repeat the message > (for Cisco) appending the phrase: Thanks for nothing. Arrogants of shit! > On the same day spamcop replied and thanked stating that the reporting > address was corrected. > Herr Volker, die Anbieter geben Sie mir nur Aufmerksamkeit, wenn > beleidigt. ;) > Tell me Andre, if a user of your server inform you that you are using > a wrong source address will you remain quiet? If he insists will you > call him of ignorant and suggest to approach a real Internet engineer > to learn how the Internet works? > To spamcop on > Aug 17, 2016: > >> 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. > >> 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. > > Clearly the problem here is that you, Marilson, completely overestimate > > your own technical skills and abilities. > Sorry to disappoint you, Andre, what you're saying is absurd. Why I > would overestimating something so trivial? I do not want to belittle > the value of your company but any idiot locates the source of spam or > scam. Do you think necessary to have technical skills and abilities > for this? > What I put for your evaluation is the time, the hours lost during a > year using spamcop. And that is unacceptable. They are yes, liar, > idiot, rascal and arrogants of shit. > Man, I know why you are so angry. In the true, to get the information > that spamcop provides, it is enough being able to read and know a > little bit English language. Stress the necessity for a major > technological knowledge will value your company. But if you will drink > from the same source of spamcop and act as they act, then your company > will be unreliable because it will present wrong scam source address. > At least 5%, Dr Engineer > in Expertise Area of Information Technology. > Good luck > Marilson > ******************************************************************* > *From:* Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM > *To:* andre at ox.co.za <mailto:andre at ox.co.za> > *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [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 > <mailto: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 -- -- Regards, Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer Buzcom / FibreWiFi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/97cfc74a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]