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, Issuزe 14
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] SPF Record - Number of included DNS lookups
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Need policy to require abuse contacts to accept abuse reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mehdi Yazdani
yazdanitci at gmail.com
Fri Sep 16 19:18:52 CEST 2016
sent by my phone On Sep 13, 2016 6:04 PM, <anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote: > 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: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11 > (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:34:06 +0000 > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> > To: Marilson <marilson.mapa at gmail.com>, "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" > <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11 > Message-ID: <4A78AF9F-3FBD-403C-A3C8-6C93E89F6650 at blacknight.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Non sanctioned in this context would mean ?without permission? > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Social: http://mneylon.social > Random Stuff: http://michele.irish > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of > Marilson <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> > Reply-To: Marilson <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday 6 September 2016 at 22:57 > To: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [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<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:37 AM > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net<mailto: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: <https://lists.ripe.net/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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/ > attachments/20160913/7ef8c621/attachment.html> > > End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 14 > ********************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160916/ccef27ea/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] SPF Record - Number of included DNS lookups
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Need policy to require abuse contacts to accept abuse reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]