August 2016 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by Marilson 02 Sep '16

02 Sep '16

On Aug 31, 2016 02:22 AM Andre Coetzee wrote: > Just this very long thread and all the confusion about what is actually > Internet abuse and what is not - serves as plain and evident proof that > even this, an actual anti-abuse WG, desperately needs a definition of > Internet Abuse. Civil society is simply ignorant of their own > requirement(s). First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not have mocked. I do not know whether the members of the group desperately needs a definition of Internet Abuse. But as a member of civil society, non-technical in IT, end user of the Internet and real victim of abuse, I can guarantee you that we need desperately is an ethical and honest behavior on the part of ISPs. The rest has not the least importance. For me it is not clear your goal. But it is not of my business. And I congratulate you again. But if you intend to use the technical definition of Internet Abuse to decide whether the complaint of a victim of abuse should or should not put a domain on the blocklist, your group will not have credibility. You will be thwarting a real victim of abuse to have his case met due to a technicality. > 2. I am also ac(a)spamcop.net - SpamCop is also a community although > operated graciously and ethically by Cisco. We are all honorable, > ethical and honest people - I challenge you in public to tell me the > name or email address of one SpamCop member that is not that? You continue underestimating people. Sorry to disappoint you. I threw a bait - spamcop - and you bit. ;) Regarding your challenge I will make much more than you asked for. I will paste below the only two messages between me and a spamcop member. And these messages occurred only because I was forced to complain about the SpamCop by copying for Cisco's Privacy Mailer. All my messages addressed to support(a)spamcop.net correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical people. I was throwing away my time because the reports, via spamcop, would never come to the sources of scam. To solve this I appealed to Cisco: (follow the dates - had to insult to be attended) From: SpamCop/Richard Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 5:48 PM To: marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com Subject: Re: Fw: Spamcop error Thank you for the information. A cache refresh has changed the reporting addresses used for 212.47.224.0/19 Richard Please include previous correspondence with replies .:|:.:|:. ******************************************** From: Marilson Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:34 AM To: privacy(a)cisco.com Subject: Fw: Spamcop error Thank you for nothing, arrogants of shit... ******************************************* From: Marilson Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 12:11 PM To: privacy(a)cisco.com Subject: Spamcop error Gentlemen, your subsidiary Spamcop is incurring a mistake repeatedly. I can not find a way or formulary to contact spamcop and explain where the error is. I appeal to you to resolve this problem: I managed that a known Brazilian spammer, who uses spam to practice embezzlement, be put out of 2 or 3 ISPs. Now he is using a new provider - Tiscali.fr - with the IP 212.47.244.217. To this IP the address is abuse(a)proxad.net To tiscali.fr, a subsidiary of tiscali.it, is abuse(a)it.tiscali.com Spamcop insists on using abuse(a)tiscali.fr This address does not exist. If this is not corrected the criminal spammer will not be denounced. Thanks Marilson ******************************************* As requests for corrections continued to be ignored, I decided to check the send to the correctly identified sources. Now the disappointment was absolute. No complaint was sent. More than a year doing complaints and nothing was sent. I decided upending the tea table and treat them with the respect they deserved: From: Marilson Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:55 PM To: SpamCop/Richard Cc: privacy(a)cisco.com ; guardian.readers(a)theguardian.com ; The Wall Street Journal ; spam(a)uce.gov ; gmail-abuse(a)google.com Subject: Re: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy.. ...to help me identify the source of spam ?!? I don’t need help of anyone to identify the source of spam. Several times I corrected your wrong source. I do this better than your company. What I can not do is block a domain. Yes, I opted to send a copy of each of these reports to my own address AND FOR THOSE NETWORKS REFERENCED IN SCAN. > You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because we were sending you mail, mail you sent yourself. Are you crazy? A half-wit? Is that your excuse for your criminal behavior? I copied to Cisco’s Privacy Mailer because you never sent any of my complaints for those networks referenced. During an entire year, liar idiot. Countless hours were lost because of you, rascal. You must to learn to respect the people. (follow various insults that I can not repeat at this working group) Marilson ***************************************************************** From: SpamCop/Richard Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14 PM To: Marilson Subject: Re: Fw: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy.. I think you missed the point of my first writing. SpamCop has been here for the last year to help you identify the source of spam you receive and help you send a complaint to the parties that are responsible for those networks sending the spam. As part of your settings, you opted to send a copy of each of these reports to your own address. This was an email from you (your SpamCop account) to you. You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because we were sending you mail, mail you sent yourself. SpamCop operates very independently of Cisco. The privacy office is in place to ensure we operate according to the privacy policy published by Cisco and to investigate where there is an accusation or suspicion the privacy policy may have been breached... *************************************************************** Well Andre, Richard is not a honorable, ethical and honest guy. You can use the argument you wish to explain these facts. But I will not discuss it, in this group, with you. My goal was to denounce spamcop here. Thank you. My disputes with SpamCop and Cisco will continue but in other forums. But if you want to discuss the tricks of Netcraft... I am all ears! Marilson

4 5

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by Marilson 31 Aug '16

31 Aug '16

On Aug 29, 2016 Andre Coetzee wrote: > 2. I do not understand Marilson's objections - apparently if someone > steals your pc it is Internet abuse, I eventually thought he meant that > the computer was stolen and used to send spam, --> but the definition > works for that, he agreed the definition stands..., > but then he seems to say that it does not? for an unknown and > non specific reason except that it may or may not include defining > "theft" Definitions Endless Andre, you continue making a mockery of me trying to hide a bad example of abuse chosen by you. The stolen computer was invented by you. To justify your concerns you said to Gunther that a stolen computer is not abuse. At first it was just an unfortunate choice of words. I tried to show that an infected computer and used without the owner's consent, is being stolen. You could have said - I used an inappropriate phrase - but your pride prevented you from doing so and preferred to ridicule my bad English saying that stolen computer is a physical act. What forced me to present several definitions in the use of the theft word. And continue distorting the facts to justify a stupid phrase. I think this group no one will give you the examples of abuse that you request. Do you know why? Because it's an affront to anyone's intelligence set the obvious. Maybe you need a technical definition of Internet Abuse for use on your server that receives spam complaint. But never dare say to a victim of abuse that he is wrong and it is not abuse. If you do you will bury your company. Nobody needs of technical definitions of Internet abuse. I'm hoping that your company becomes larger than SpamCop. SpamCop-Cisco is outdated and has acted partially protecting some companies. Its software is limited to search the records in Whois, which are often false or incomplete. My research to identify all those involved in abuse is better, bigger and more correct than the SpamCop. As a rule I even inform the owner's name of subdomain under protection service of DomainsByProxy-Godaddy, CloudFlare, Whois Privacy Protect-Rightside, etc. On Aug 29, 2016 Suresh wrote: > So far this subthread has been a case of the blind leading the blind, but Marilson is indeed correct here. Suresh, I am not blind yet. But as Diogenes of Sinope, in Ancient Greece, I try to find, with my lantern, an honest ISP. After hundreds of complaints I can tell you that I count on the fingers of one hand the ISPs that have acted correctly. It is noteworthy that there were many discussions, many fights, but never, I never had to discuss whether it was abuse or not. ;) Marilson

3 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE Charter
by Athina Fragkouli 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

Dear Ronald, We would like to provide some information in response to the questions you have raised. > The "Publication date" on the "RIPE NCC Articles of Association (2013)” as presented at the URL above is "20 Jan 2014", but RIPE NCC, as a formal association under Dutch law has existed for far longer than that, correct? On what date did RIPE NCC first obtain legal existance under Dutch law? The RIPE NCC was incorporated under Dutch Law on 12 November 1997, when the Articles of Association were deposited with the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce. The original version of the Articles of Association can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-176 Since then, the Articles of Association have been updated several times — each time by a resolution that was approved by the General Meeting (GM). The RIPE NCC publishes the latest version of the Articles of Association and keeps a public archive of all previous versions. You can also find all relevant documents presented at each GM where amendments to the Articles of Association were discussed. > In the entire history of RIPE NCC, as a formal association under Dutch law, has there ever been any instance in which The Association has applied either Section 6.1(b) or Section 6.1(e) of the Articles of Association? If so, on how many separate occasions have such terminations occured? > With respect to each such instance, if any, has The Association obeyed in full the stipulation, as to its own behavior contained in Section 10.5 of the Articles of Association? In order for a natural or legal person to become member of the RIPE NCC, they need to sign the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (Article 4). The Standard Service Agreement is a document approved by the GM that can be amended through further GM resolutions (Article 2.3). Accordingly, the termination of a membership is linked to the termination of a member's Standard Service Agreement (see Article 9.5). The Standard Service Agreement may be terminated in accordance with Article 9. This same article states that the particular reasons for termination and the procedures followed are defined in the RIPE NCC procedural document "Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources”. You can find this here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-640 The most common reason for termination of the Standard Service Agreement is due to non-payment of fees, liquidation or bankruptcy, or when a member ceases to exist for any reason. However, there is a smaller number of cases where the RIPE NCC has terminated Standard Service Agreement because the member: - Submitted fraudulent documents to the RIPE NCC - Did not comply with a RIPE NCC audit - Failed to submit recent proof of their existence (e.g. registration papers from the national authorities). As an association under Dutch Law, the RIPE NCC has to comply with sanctions imposed by the Netherlands and the EU that may restrict us from having a contractual relationship with a member. More information about this is available in the RIPE NCC procedural document "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data”. The RIPE NCC has previously terminated the Standard Service Agreement of several parties that were listed in such sanctions. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-669 So far in 2016, around 300 memberships have been terminated for non-payment of fees, liquidation or bankruptcy, or because the member ceased to exist. Around four memberships have been terminated for one of these other reasons (submitting fraudulent documents, failure to comply with audits or failure to supply proof of existence). No memberships have been terminated this year due to sanctions. We would like to draw your attention to the RIPE NCC Report Form on our website. This provides a simple way to report fraudulent information supplied to the RIPE NCC or incorrect information in the RIPE Database, for example. We will investigate any reports we receive through the report form and take action if required. While we will don't report back the results of our investigations directly, we do provide some numbers in our Annual Report each year. In 2015, we received 319 reports through the form: - 131 were reported as incorrect data in the RIPE Database. 67 of these required further investigation by the RIPE NCC. - 180 cases were reported as policy violations, untruthful information or were related to bankruptcy. 143 of these cases turned out not to be policy violations, seven could not be followed up due to lack of information and five resulted in further inquiries. 25 did indeed concern policy violations, untruthful information, or bankruptcy. - Eight cases were not classified as abuse reports but were investigated nonetheless. You can find the report form here: https://www.ripe.net/report-form Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:27:04 -0700 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE Charter In message <57AB1227.1070100(a)iszt.hu>, Janos Zsako <zsako(a)iszt.hu> wrote: > No, but you can find the RIPE NCC's Articles of Association at > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-602 Thank you! That document is most helpful. > RIPE does not have "authority" over RIPE NCC, it is the members. In many > cases the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC membership overlap, but not > always. I have many questions. I hope nobody will mind. I will try to be brief. I'm still trying to understand. RIPE is *not* RIPE NCC and vise versa, correct? I mean they are two different things, legally speaking, yes? A person or legal entity could be a member of "RIPE" and yet not be a member of "RIPE NCC", correct? Conversely, could a person or legal entity be a member of "RIPE NCC" and yet _not_ be a member of "RIPE"? Is it correct also that only those persons and legal entities that are actually paying dues to RIPE NCC are members of RIPE NCC? The "Publication date" on the "RIPE NCC Articles of Association (2013)" as presented at the URL above is "20 Jan 2014", but RIPE NCC, as a formal association under Dutch law has existed for far longer than that, correct? On what date did RIPE NCC first obtain legal existance under Dutch law? In the entire history of RIPE NCC, as a formal association under Dutch law, has there ever been any instance in which The Association has applied either Section 6.1(b) or Section 6.1(e) of the Articles of Association? If so, on how many separate occasions have such terminations occured? With respect to each such instance, if any, has The Association obeyed in full the stipulation, as to its own behavior contained in Section 10.5 of the Articles of Association? Regards, rfg

7 13

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by ox 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:32:57 +0200 ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > I think this now works... any comments? > Also, just to add the outstanding non specific objections that I know of, from other threads: 1. Gunther says that a single resource can abuse, I presume itself? (as in for example you send yourself spam, I guess, as he did not reply to requests for a real world example of such a single resource abuse on a network / Internet, abuse) 2. I do not understand Marilson's objections - apparently if someone steals your pc it is Internet abuse, I eventually thought he meant that the computer was stolen and used to send spam, --> but the definition works for that, he agreed the definition stands..., but then he seems to say that it does not? for an unknown and non specific reason except that it may or may not include defining "theft" 3. Suresh says the proposed definition is too "narrow" and I need to consult with "abuse policy enforcement and network security" experts to know or understand why. He also says: "Your definition of abuse will not stand." and abuse discussions about defining Internet Abuse is the "blind leading the blind" My comments to the all the above objections are: I do not understand any of them, they make no sense and they are mysterious, secret or something? If any of these are in any way valid or contributes to understanding Internet Abuse, please supply any real world examples Even just a single, as in ONE real world example. If the objectors do not even have or cannot even supply, a single real world example, it simply means that they are objecting for the simple sake of objecting and have no valid contribution to make. As an abuse WG discussing many forms of Internet Abuse, much of which is also criminal activity, cyber crime and criminal syndicates, one has to question the motives of simply objecting to something without being able to supply a practical and real example of that which you are stating as a fact. If they do not provide any real world examples of course their objections means nothing - as it is just "noise", interference or obstruction... If any of the objectors provide actual real world examples, of network (Internet) abuse that the definition does not include, this may advance the understanding of Internet Abuse and could serve to improve, change or further define the definition of what Internet Abuse is as well as what it is not. If there are any additional objections that I may have missed, please let me know and let us move forward in our understanding of what Internet Abuse is, so that when we talk about Internet Abuse, we all understand what we are talking about the same thing and not about "we will know it when we see it", because maybe we will not see or know it and very probably we may be all talking about different things and using the same words to do that. It is not in the Interest of many organisations that there should exist a common definition of Internet Abuse, as this is the first step towards effectively educating civil society about exactly what it is and what it is not. At the very least, a technical definition of Internet Abuse should be the work product of this group, as it is supposedly our rai·son d'ê·tre André > ============ > Internet Abuse > ============ > > Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy > undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet > consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates > to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. > > Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, > credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical > examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even > Email addresses. > > This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include > identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not > intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what > technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet > resources. > > > ====================== > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) Resource > Any Internet Resource > > (2) Use and Usage > Any direct or indirect action involving a resource > > (3) Rights > The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the > authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the > entitlement or reasonable > expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned > resource > > (4) Infringe > An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or > encroaches upon the fair use of a resource > > (5) Sanctioned > Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or > administrative holder of rights to a resource > > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:05:59 +0200 > ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 > > Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > > > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone > > > please have a look and see if there are any final issues? > > > > > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may > > require a change. > > (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list) > > > > > > There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified > > by Gert Doering - as complicated :) ) > > > > I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need > > to think about the problem more... > > > > as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the > > use of that TLD to send spam.... > > > > ++++++++++++++ > > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > > rights of another resource" > > > > (4) Sanctioned > > An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative > > holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission > > is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, > > event or action. > > +++++++++++++++ > > > > Andre > > > >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by ox 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

I think this now works... any comments? ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== 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 -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:05:59 +0200 ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 > Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone > > please have a look and see if there are any final issues? > > > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may > require a change. > (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list) > > > There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified > by Gert Doering - as complicated :) ) > > I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need to > think about the problem more... > > as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the > use of that TLD to send spam.... > > ++++++++++++++ > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > rights of another resource" > > (4) Sanctioned > An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative > holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission > is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, > event or action. > +++++++++++++++ > > Andre >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On 29/08/16, 9:52 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > We are discussing Internet Abuse - and, to be clear – I > still have no idea what you are talking about. Your diatribe > makes no sense and I am giving up trying to figure out what > it means as it is simply too much effort. So far this subthread has been a case of the blind leading the blind, but Marilson is indeed correct here. Your definition of abuse (for all that it can be defined in the overly narrow sense you are trying to bog the discussion down into) will not stand. If you have any colleagues that actually do abuse policy enforcement and network security, feel free to talk to them. --srs

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by ox 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:13:28 +0200 Andre Coetzee <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone > please have a look and see if there are any final issues? > After another off list comment, the description of 'sanctioned' may require a change. (Big thank you to everyone that has helped me, on and off list) There is still a problem with 'sanctioned' (as originally identified by Gert Doering - as complicated :) ) I do not have any solution or suggestion myself, yet, and will need to think about the problem more... as, what happens when the registrant of an entire TLD authorises the use of that TLD to send spam.... ++++++++++++++ "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" (4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action. +++++++++++++++ Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

> On Aug 28, 2016 Andre Ox wrote: > When you say: My Computer was stolen > It means that - Someone physically took your computer away from you Now I understand your obsession to define abuse. Abuse has several definitions as well as the word steal that you defined as being the physical act of taking something that does not belong to you. Shakespeare must be moving in his tomb. Once you think use my computer for illicit purposes and without my consent is not theft, I prepared for you some of the many possible ways to use the word theft. See below, learn and try not to disturb the sleep of Shakespeare. > Your take away should be to learn better English :) > And, this is exactly why we need a good definition of abuse. It is all about words. We need??? Certainly YOU need! After your definition of steal... Why I should be to learn better English?!? For what? What will I do with it? It is strange to hear that from people who not succeed in define abuse and theft. And abuse and theft is a specialty of IT in the email marketing sector. I suggest you read more. Start by great thinkers. And without prejudice start by Nietzsche in On the Genealogy of Morality. > And, Marilson, telling me that I am an example of a single abuse > resource, when all I am doing is simply trying to understand what the > heck you are talking about (as you are using the wrong English words) > is not cool. I did not once call you any names or say anything > personally rude about you, I know exactly how fast things can be in a > third or fourth or even fifth+ language :( Your comments are full of arrogance and veiled insults. And you are being a hypocrite in saying that is not rude. End an offense with a smiley does not improve your attitude. And you need to understand that does not own the truth and must learn to live with contradictory. :) STEAL As verb (used with object): to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle. Baseball - (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball. Games - to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show. As verb (used without object): to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight. to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by. As noun: Informal - an act of stealing. Informal - the thing stolen. Informal - something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40. As Idioms: steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan,words, etc. Examples from the Web for steal: to steal music without paying a dime for it. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own. "We steal our own happiness for no apparent reason," says Danziger. “Sometimes they are said to steal only the heart—like Lancashire witches.” John Gibson Lockhart. to steal a glance at to steal a march upon someone to steal a marriage to steal away to steal out to steal upon someone to steal someone’s heart to steal someone’s thunder to steal the show I STOLE this... sorry Andre, I PICKED UP this using Internet. I will tell you when it is forbidden to use the word stole: Great nations never stole, simply took in order to make themselves great. (Solon) Marilson _____________________________________________ Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:06:20 -0300 From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> To: "ox" <andre(a)ox.co.za> Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble Message-ID: <FEF0ACC9459247D986724B37A65789E4@xPC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please, Andre. I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to be so so vulgar that I can understand your extraordinary knowledge about abuse on the Internet. Do not worry, your technical colleagues will understand you. Sorry my low intellectual capacity, but you used the following expressions to explain what is not Internet Abuse: > No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. Now, it is clear that you could also have said: the cat crushed by that car is not of account of this abuse group. I'm sorry but I thought you was talking about internet. When I wrote: > If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs. You reply: > Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... > I hope this helps you understand? > If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? > Thank you so much! Disregarding the excess of arrogance in your words I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse: > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? And you wrote in your second reply: > If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse... (emphasis added) Wow! Now we are talking about breaking and entering to steal objects, that is, we are talking about the cat crushed by that car is not of account of that abuse group. Compare with the original sentence: ?No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.? You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes. Just to be technically clear :) Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up... Good lucky Marilson

2 1

Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
by Andre Coetzee 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

The definition of Internet Abuse seems to be done, can everyone please have a look and see if there are any final issues? ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== 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 -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action. (5) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
by Marilson 28 Aug '16

28 Aug '16

Please, Andre. I'm sorry if I'm forcing you to be so so vulgar that I can understand your extraordinary knowledge about abuse on the Internet. Do not worry, your technical colleagues will understand you. Sorry my low intellectual capacity, but you used the following expressions to explain what is not Internet Abuse: > No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes. Now, it is clear that you could also have said: the cat crushed by that car is not of account of this abuse group. I'm sorry but I thought you was talking about internet. When I wrote: > If someone had their home PC infected or abused, it's because someone used the means and tools provided by RIRs, Registrars and ISPs. You reply: > Just stealing a pc - Is called theft... > I hope this helps you understand? > If not, maybe you can provide a lot more specifics of how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse? > Thank you so much! Disregarding the excess of arrogance in your words I explained how stealing a pc is Internet Abuse: > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? And you wrote in your second reply: > If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse... (emphasis added) Wow! Now we are talking about breaking and entering to steal objects, that is, we are talking about the cat crushed by that car is not of account of that abuse group. Compare with the original sentence: “No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or abused in their homes.” You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes. Just to be technically clear :) Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up... Good lucky Marilson From: ox Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:42 AM To: Marilson Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:16:09 +0200 > "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it > > was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? Are you > > talking about what? Home invasion? Theft of objects? > Just read what you, yourself are typing above: > "If a computer was infected" - this means that: > Someone or something did something > Someone or Something (or a program or whatever) DID infect > So, the definition of Internet Abuse, As I have stated it - Works > perfectly fine. > Maybe If you read the definition again, it can help you? > > "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage > rights of another resource" > > This means: Someone (or something) USED you resource (Your PC) > to send spam or do something or use it for... > Just in case someone technical now wants to tell me that a "pc" is not an Internet Resource, PLEASE note: I am simply making it VERY simple so that Marilson can understand it also... In the example - the internet resource would of course NOT be Marilson's PC - BUT his PC's resource (IP number, etc) or the resource that Marilson's PC uses, on the Internet, - to abuse ANOTHER resource... Just to be technically clear :) And then, there is still no real world example of a single resource abuse. So, I guess that means that the definition still holds up... Andre > See? > > - If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc > It is NOT Internet Abuse... > > If they break in and USE your PC to send spam - Then of course it is > Internet Abuse - and the definition holds up. > > BUT > > You are changing the point... You were siding with Gunther, and what > Gunther said was: > > a Single resource can do Internet Abuse... > > You are involving multiple resources and then claiming that it > addresses the first problem... > > Not cool, so either you are arguing for the simple sake of arguing or > you do not understand the problem. > > Which is it? > > Andre >

2 1