<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Non sanctioned in this context would mean “without permission”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> --<o:p></o:p> Mr Michele Neylon<o:p></o:p> Blacknight Solutions<o:p></o:p> Hosting, Colocation & Domains<o:p></o:p> http://www.blacknight.host/<o:p></o:p> http://blacknight.blog/<o:p></o:p> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage<o:p></o:p> http://www.technology.ie<o:p></o:p> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<o:p></o:p> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<o:p></o:p> Social: <a href="http://mneylon.social">http://mneylon.social</a><o:p></o:p> Random Stuff: <a href="http://michele.irish">http://michele.irish</a> <o:p></o:p> -------------------------------<o:p></o:p> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty<o:p></o:p> </div> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Marilson <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> Reply-To: Marilson <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 6 September 2016 at 22:57 To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> Someone could help a non-native to understand the meaning of the word (SANCTIONED) used by Andre?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> In the definition of Internet Abuse: *The non sanctioned use...*<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> And in defining the terminology: *(5) Sanctioned - Infringement upon...*<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> The sanction verb as:<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> - give permission or approval for<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> or<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> - impose a sanction or penalty on<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> In both sentences – SANCTIONED - as imposed sanction or permission and sanction?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Thanks<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Marilson<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> <div> <div> <div> From: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net" title="anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net"> anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net</a> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:37 AM<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" title="anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg@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@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner@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@gmail.com> To: <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse - The agony of trying to unsubscribe Message-ID: <00A5F6C9CEEA4D26B48EF249C755BD90@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@highwayman.com> To: ox <andre@ox.co.za> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 Message-ID: <AGFTn+I0zizXFAOi@highwayman.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre@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@ox.co.za> To: Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 Message-ID: <mailman.406.1473140263.2752.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote: > In message , ox <andre@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@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@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 *********************************************<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>