[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11

Someone could help a non-native to understand the meaning of the word (SANCTIONED) used by Andre?

In the definition of Internet Abuse: *The non sanctioned use...*

And in defining the terminology: *(5) Sanctioned - Infringement upon...*

The sanction verb as:

- give permission or approval for
or
- impose a sanction or penalty on

In both sentences – SANCTIONED - as imposed sanction or permission and sanction?

Thanks
Marilson
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:37 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11

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. Definition of Internet Abuse - The agony of trying to
      unsubscribe (Marilson)
   2. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 (Richard Clayton)
   3. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 (ox)


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

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:01:08 -0300
From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com>
To: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse - The agony of
trying to unsubscribe
Message-ID: <00A5F6C9CEEA4D26B48EF249C755BD90 at xPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

?People say we live in an age of information overload. Right? I don't know about that, but I just know that I get too many marketing emails.?
?...I scrolled down to the bottom of the email, and I pressed, "Unsubscribe." And I thought that'd be the end of it. But a week later, I got another one that said,...?
?And I thought, obviously, I haven't clicked hard enough. So I tried it again. Right? Lo and behold, a week passes, you guessed it,...?
?And I was really annoyed with them, and I thought, OK, I was about to write a strongly worded email, which I can do quite well.?

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_veitch_the_agony_of_trying_to_unsubscribe

So Andre, people who do this say they are not committing INTERNET ABUSE because they put a link to unsubscribe. This is too much hypocrisy or they really believe that we are mentally feeble?
According to your concerns as you classify this attitude?

I see billions of spam

Red scam too

I see them blomm

For me and you

And I think to myself

What a wonderful word



I see skies of shit

And Clouds of bits

The bright blessed day

Become a dark pit

And I think to myself

What a wonderful word



The colors of the messages

So pretty in the sky

Are also on the faces

Of spammers going by

I see friends wasting time

Saying: "What can we do?"

They are really saying

"I hate all of you"

Yes, I think to myself

What a wonderful world


Thanks
Marilson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160905/3b716662/attachment-0001.html>

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
From: Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com>
To: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Message-ID: <AGFTn+I0zizXFAOi at highwayman.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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

you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity for
which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it goes)

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.

- -- 
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-----



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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200
From: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
To: Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Message-ID: <mailman.406.1473140263.2752.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

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-----
> 




End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160906/2460f7fb/attachment.html>