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] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Mon Sep 5 05:04:28 CEST 2016
Richard, Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite correct about the abuse from legacy resources. However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources... Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the richard at example.com resource - by deleting richard@ (of course this extends to RIR and other resources as well) In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse' would in fact be sanctioned. So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way around and is correct? Thank you so much for contributing and helping Andre On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote: > >====================== > >Definition of Internet abuse > >====================== > >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > >rights of another resource" > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >Terminology used in the above definition > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >(5) Sanctioned > >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or > >administrative holder of rights to a resource > that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to > say > (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing > isolation, but you might as well make it coherent) > BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to > abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is > made that there can be no administration of them ... >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]