[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you agree that we are succeeding.
Marilson


From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net 
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.ripe.net/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final (Volker Greimann)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:31:36 +0200
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Message-ID: <45504d89-5b20-515f-2f74-be65346fe8d7 at key-systems.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

This entire exchange reminds me of this scene:

https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE?t=41

"This is abuse"

Best,

Volker


Am 02.09.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Hal ponton:
> 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/d5ef1c69/attachment.html>

End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/b0a42f9c/attachment.html>