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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:
> In message , ox <andre at ox.co.za> writes
> >Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
> >correct about the abuse from legacy resources.
> no -- I was concerned about abuse OF 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 
> 
> you've missed my point
> 
I have not.

> you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity
> for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it
> goes)
> 
I do no such thing...

> you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity
> of what permission means.
> 
no, you are wrong again...

Let me help you with it?

Abuse core definition: - Read it :: s l o w l y 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, read my previous reply, again?


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 ...
>   





> - -- 
> richard                                                   Richard
> Clayton
> 
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin
> Franklin 11 Nov 1755
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
> 
> iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
> bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
> =9ogY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>