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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
by Marilson 13 Sep '16

13 Sep '16

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(a)ripe.net Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:37 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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(a)gmail.com> To: <anti-abuse-wg(a)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

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
by Gunther Nitzsche 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Hi, (long answer again..:-/ ) On 09/06/2016 08:21 AM, ox wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:08:05 +0100 > Richard Clayton <richard(a)highwayman.com> wrote: >>> "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage >>> rights of another resource" >>> >>> (1) Resource >>> Any Internet Resource >> that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much >> > Okay, how can it be improved? > > All Internet resources? > That is still recursive. (as I wrote before). And as I also wrote: "The posted suggestion of "abuse" currently does not even fit for the case where several (more than two) "resources" are involved." You ignored this fact completely. >> So..suggestion: abuse somehow is the violation of local laws and AUPs >> of the involved providers. (Someone might want to finalize that in >> correct english) > > But not all Internet abuse is in violation of laws, and, just because > it is not illegal, are you saying that because it is not illegal, it > means that it is not abuse? If it is legal, you can't sue your customer. It may be immoral, (is that an english word?) but yes.. if the act in question is not stated (somehow) in the (local) law or in the additional AUPs and contracts then the person in question can always argue, it was no abuse. If it is not forbidden, it is allowed. If it is allowed it is hard to call it abuse. Somewhere else it might be forbidden and considered abuse. It just depends.. Sometimes things are so easy ;) What is hard for anyone offering internet services is to define an appropriate acceptable use policy which covers at least most possible abusive behaviour cases.. >>> (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. >> excellent, the negation has disappeared That doesn't say much. Example: Email sender provider supports sending advertisements; because it might be just normal in that culture. So the mail is sanctioned. The receiver lives under different laws in a different culture where unsolicited email is unwanted and considered abuse. Now what.. The sending of the email is not abuse, but receiving the mail is? >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or >administrative holder of rights to a resource assignor of a resource? What is that? (if you even say login-credentials are a resource, a smtp-server is a resource, cpu-cycles are, domain-names are.. ) Let's get back to RIPE: if RIPE NCC assigns ip-space to a provider, how does the assignor (RIPE) sees an infringement if someone sends (sanctioned, see above) spam-emails from there? I do not like the whole concept of these resources. In the sentences below you now also have added the task to define "fair use" .. I know that Andre will immediately answer this mail and he will pick only some parts and insists on his "resources"... But I want to focus on the two statements: * the restriction to (undefined) resources in an abuse-definition is not helpful * abuse is interpreted differently in different parts of this world; therefore we should stick with written papers.. contracts, laws, AUPs. like: (internet) abuse is the violation of valid legal interests (laws, contracts, AUPs) to the detriment of a third party ..to be discussed:) (Just found the word detriment..:) best greetings, Gunther > Yeah, but now it does not cater for orphan resources > > Remember that; > > If a resource is used with permission to abuse another resource = abuse > > So, the negation exists to allow the abuse to the resource (itself) by > it's 'upstream' > > Which is why sanctioned - now works... (in the new order - after > infringement...) > > (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 > > Andre > > NetCologne Systemadministration -- NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln Geschäftsführer: Timo von Lepel, Mario Wilhelm Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Andreas Cerbe HRB 25580, AG Köln

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
by Marilson 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you agree that we are succeeding. Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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: Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final (Volker Greimann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:31:36 +0200 From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final Message-ID: <45504d89-5b20-515f-2f74-be65346fe8d7(a)key-systems.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" This entire exchange reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE?t=41 "This is abuse" Best, Volker Am 02.09.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Hal ponton: > Hi All, > > I think this is getting a little abusive here, can the tone be brought > down a little to something a little more acceptable please? > > Regards, > > Hal Ponton > Senior Network Engineer > > Buzcom / FibreWiFi > >> Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa@gmail.com> >> 2 September 2016 at 14:46 >> On Sep 01, 2016 07:12 Andre Coetzee wrote: >> > It is very clear what and who what you are Marilson. >> > completely overestimate your own technical skills and abilities. >> > >> technically ignorant >> > extremely belligerent >> > how ignorant you are >> > >> approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works >> > You obviously have a lot to learn >> > reading what I am typing and improving yourself (mamma mia, without >> smiley ;) this phrase sound too bad) >> Hmm...well, I won't stoop so low. And am I the extremely belligerent?!? >> On my last message I wrote: >> >> >> First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not >> have mocked. >> Your comments were full of arrogance and veiled insults and now the >> insults are clear and direct. What happened? No one can call you a >> hypocrite, right? >> You took sentences of my message and evaluated out of context. >> Another sight of you ? dishonesty. >> I will repeat because you were dishonest: >> All my messages addressed to support(a)spamcop.net >> <mailto:support@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. I needed to help them so I >> do not waste time with my complaints. To solve this I appealed to >> Cisco. Cisco or spamcop did nothing. I waited 30 days and repeat the >> message (for Cisco) appending the phrase: Thanks for nothing. >> Arrogants of shit! >> On the same day spamcop replied and thanked stating that the >> reporting address was corrected. >> Herr Volker, die Anbieter geben Sie mir nur Aufmerksamkeit, wenn >> beleidigt. ;) >> Tell me Andre, if a user of your server inform you that you are using >> a wrong source address will you remain quiet? If he insists will you >> call him of ignorant and suggest to approach a real Internet engineer >> to learn how the Internet works? >> To spamcop on >> Aug 17, 2016: >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> > Clearly the problem here is that you, Marilson, completely >> overestimate >> > your own technical skills and abilities. >> Sorry to disappoint you, Andre, what you're saying is absurd. Why I >> would overestimating something so trivial? I do not want to belittle >> the value of your company but any idiot locates the source of spam or >> scam. Do you think necessary to have technical skills and abilities >> for this? >> What I put for your evaluation is the time, the hours lost during a >> year using spamcop. And that is unacceptable. They are yes, liar, >> idiot, rascal and arrogants of shit. >> Man, I know why you are so angry. In the true, to get the information >> that spamcop provides, it is enough being able to read and know a >> little bit English language. Stress the necessity for a major >> technological knowledge will value your company. But if you will >> drink from the same source of spamcop and act as they act, then your >> company will be unreliable because it will present wrong scam source >> address. At least 5%, Dr Engineer >> in Expertise Area of Information Technology. >> Good luck >> Marilson >> ******************************************************************* >> *From:* Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM >> *To:* andre(a)ox.co.za <mailto:andre@ox.co.za> >> *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final >> 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 >> <mailto:support@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@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@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@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@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 > > -- > -- > Regards, > > Hal Ponton > Senior Network Engineer > > Buzcom / FibreWiFi > >

3 9

Definition of Internet Abuse - The agony of trying to unsubscribe
by Marilson 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

“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

1 0

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

Fwd: Can’t Last Long In Bed? (3 quick ways to FIX it)
by Deborah Castle 02 Sep '16

02 Sep '16

Please can you investigate and stop this. Many thanks! Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: ICST Abuse G <abuse(a)bt.com> > Date: 2 September 2016 at 06:46:23 BST > To: <deborahcastle1(a)btinternet.com> > Subject: Fwd: Can’t Last Long In Bed? (3 quick ways to FIX it) > Reply-To: <abuse(a)bt.com> > > Dear Customer, > > > Thank you for contacting BT - This is an automated response, please do not reply to this email. > Please be aware that we may not be able to respond individually to every email received. > > > > Please note that BT can only take action when the misuse originates from one of our customers or networks. > > > > We want the Internet to be a happy place, where our customers have a positive experience. Unfortunately there are times when people abuse the network, behaving in a way that upsets other users. This could be anything from sending viruses or posting illegal material on Internet newsgroups. We take such misuse very seriously and have an Acceptable Use Policy telling customers what is unacceptable behaviour. > > > > BT's Acceptable Use Policy can be found here www.bt.com/acceptableuse > > > > If we find that a BT customer breaches the BT Terms & Conditions we’ll take action against them > > > > BT's Terms and Conditions can be found here http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/dynamicmodules/pagec…. > > Report abuse to us if : > > > 1. 1. The abuse comes from somebody using a BT email service. This includes cases when the offending email comes from an address ending in @: > > > . btinternet.com > . btopenworld.com > . btconnect.com > . btbusinessoffice.com > . btbroadbandoffice.com > . btclick.com > . talk21.com > > > 2. 2. The abuse comes from an Internet Protocol (IP) address used by BT. An IP address is a unique number given to every computer that is connected to the Internet. It is made up of four number separated by full stops, for example: 123.654.25.789. (See point 7 below to find out how to get IP information.) You can find out if BT is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for a particular IP address by entering it at www.db.ripe.net/whois > > > 3. 3. The abuse comes from any other application supported by BT. > We will deal with the situation appropriately, but for legal reasons we cannot tell you what action we may take against an offender. If you believe a BT customer has carried out illegal activity over the Internet you should immediately contact your local police force to report it. Make sure you give all the evidence you have to the police when you report it. We are sorry, but we cannot report allegations of illegal activity to the police on your behalf. > > > > Thanks for reporting this case to us, we appreciate your help. Please see the notes below for more detailed information about reporting internet abuse issues. > > > 1. 1. Abuse from a non-BT network > We're sorry, but BT can't take action where the abuse comes from a non-BT customer. Instead, please report the abuse directly to the offender's Internet Service Provider (ISP). You can find out who is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for a particular IP address (see point 7 below to find out how to get IP information) by entering it at www.db.ripe.net/whois > > > 2. 2. Reporting unsolicited email from the BT Network > When you contact us to report spam coming from the BT network, please attach any other emails you have sent us about spam. This helps us deal more quickly with your concerns. Because of the way the Internet operates it isn't always possible to trust the information shown in the 'From' and 'To' fields of emails. This means that to find out where the email really came from we need to see the spam email's header information, including the IP address. (See point 7 below to find out how to get header information.) > Please take care opening emails, even if they look like they're from a sender you trust, as they may contain viruses. > > > 3. 3. Child Sexual Abuse > If you are concerned about the comments or behaviour of someone online and fear that a child is at risk, please send a report to the Virtual Global Taskforce at: www.virtualglobaltaskforce.com. The Taskforce is made up of police forces from around the world, including the UK, and works to make the Internet a safer place for children. The Taskforce website also provides related information, advice and support. > > > 4. 4. Illegal Material > If you're faced with illegal material that contains any of the following: > Child sexual abuse images hosted anywhere in the world > Criminally obscene content hosted in the UK > Incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK > Inappropriate chat or behaviour with or towards a child online. > > Please send a report to the Internet Watch Foundation. > You can do this directly via the web at www.iwf.org.uk. > The IWF works with international bodies to remove illegal material from the Internet. > > > 5. 5. Scams advice > Your personal and financial information – including your BT bill and account number can be valuable to fraudsters – please keep them safe. > Take some simple precautions to protect your personal details – for tips on how to protect yourself and find out the latest information go to www.bt.com/scams > > If you are a victim of a scam or attempted scam, do report this. Your information could form part of a bigger picture and help to protect others in a similar position to you. > The quickest way to report scams or attempted scams is online to Action Fraud – the UK’s national reporting centre for fraud and internet crime. The portal can also be accessed from www.bt.com/scams > > > 6. 6. Yahoo! SpamGuard > Yahoo! Internet users can use email filtering to reduce the amount of spam (unsolicited junk email) you receive. Yahoo! SpamGuard is automatically switched on for your account when you sign up. It's impossible for any email filtering to be 100% effective, so we recommend that you check filtered emails to make sure that they haven't been mistaken for spam. You can also click the 'This is spam' tab above spam emails that weren't filtered so they will be filtered in future. > > > 7. 7. How to extract email header information > Emails contain header information that you can't usually see. The header contains details of where the email came from, including the sender's IP address, and the path it took through the Internet. Please include this information when you report spam. > To find header information in Outlook Express: select the spam email and click on 'File' and then 'Properties' To find header information in Microsoft Outlook: Open the spam email and click on 'View' and then 'Options' > Copy and paste this information into an email and send it on to us. To find headers using other email software, please look at your email software's Help section. If you need help finding email headers, please contact us for advice or visit a free spam report website for more information. One such site is www.spamcop.net. > > > 8. 8. Port Scanning and Firewall Logs > Firewalls help prevent unwanted access to your computer by monitoring the ports on your computer. Logs are produced by the firewall to show ports that have been scanned. If you're contacting us about a possible port scan please include your firewall log so that we can carry out a full investigation. Before doing this, however, please be aware that sometimes the 'background noise of the internet' is mistaken for a port scan. If you're still concerned, and you run firewall software, you should be able to find your IP log in your firewall software control panel - the IP log is sometimes called 'Events' or something similar. This will show us the time and origin of the attack, helping us identify those responsible so that we can take further action. > We also need to know the time zone used by your computer, for example Greenwich Mean Time. If you're not sure of this, please double click on the time display on your computer screen (usually in the bottom right-hand corner). This will open a window showing your clock settings. > > > 9. 9. BT Port Scanning > To help protect our users and the network we periodically carry out port scanning activity. We do this to detect and contact customers with open servers. Using open servers is a breach of the BT Terms & Conditions / Acceptable Use Policies. For more details, please visit: www.bt.com/acceptableuse. > > British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000. This electronic message contains information from British telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email immediately. > Activity and use of the British Telecommunications plc email system is monitored to secure its effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. > For BT's privacy and security policy for web and email usage, for pricing information, and for our terms and conditions, please visit www.bt.com. > > For more information on BT Internet Security please visit > www.bt.com/help/home/security.html. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > BT Internet Customer Security Team > www.bt.com/acceptableuse.

2 1

Testing
by Deborah Castle 02 Sep '16

02 Sep '16

Sent from my iPhone

1 0

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