Someone could help a non-native to understand the meaning of the word
(SANCTIONED) used by Andre?
In both sentences – SANCTIONED - as imposed sanction or permission and
sanction?
Send
anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg@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@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing
the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit
your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg
digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Definition of
Internet Abuse - The agony of trying to
unsubscribe (Marilson)
2. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59,
Issue 7 (Richard Clayton)
3. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59,
Issue 7
(ox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
1
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:01:08 -0300
From: "Marilson"
<marilson.mapa@gmail.com>
To:
<anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of
Internet Abuse - The agony of
trying to unsubscribe
Message-ID:
<00A5F6C9CEEA4D26B48EF249C755BD90@xPC>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
?People say we live in an age of information overload.
Right? I don't know about that, but I just know that I get too many marketing
emails.?
?...I scrolled down to the bottom of the email, and I pressed,
"Unsubscribe." And I thought that'd be the end of it. But a week later, I got
another one that said,...?
?And I thought, obviously, I haven't clicked hard
enough. So I tried it again. Right? Lo and behold, a week passes, you guessed
it,...?
?And I was really annoyed with them, and I thought, OK, I was about
to write a strongly worded email, which I can do quite
well.?
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_veitch_the_agony_of_trying_to_unsubscribe
So
Andre, people who do this say they are not committing INTERNET ABUSE because
they put a link to unsubscribe. This is too much hypocrisy or they really
believe that we are mentally feeble?
According to your concerns as you
classify this attitude?
I see billions of spam
Red scam
too
I see them blomm
For me and you
And I think to
myself
What a wonderful word
I see skies of
shit
And Clouds of bits
The bright blessed day
Become a
dark pit
And I think to myself
What a wonderful
word
The colors of the messages
So pretty in the
sky
Are also on the faces
Of spammers going by
I see
friends wasting time
Saying: "What can we do?"
They are really
saying
"I hate all of you"
Yes, I think to myself
What a
wonderful world
Thanks
Marilson
-------------- next part
--------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160905/3b716662/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message:
2
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
From: Richard Clayton
<richard@highwayman.com>
To: ox <andre@ox.co.za>
Cc:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol
59, Issue 7
Message-ID:
<AGFTn+I0zizXFAOi@highwayman.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED
MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message , ox <andre@ox.co.za>
writes
>Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho,
quite
>correct about the abuse from legacy resources.
no -- I was
concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(
>However, the current
definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
>resource to infringe
upon the usage rights of another resource
>
>So, this caters exactly
for ALL resources, including legacy resources...
>
>Thank you for
your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
>reflect
you've missed my point
you define abuse as "non sanctioned"
activity... that is, activity for
which permission has not been
granted. Fair enough (so far as it goes)
you then define
"sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
setting out a definition
which has something to do with the complexity
of what permission
means.
- --
richard
Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin
Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk
version
1.7.1
iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
=9ogY
-----END
PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message:
3
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200
From: ox
<andre@ox.co.za>
To: Richard Clayton
<richard@highwayman.com>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re:
[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Message-ID:
<mailman.406.1473140263.2752.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
Richard
Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
> In message , ox
<andre@ox.co.za> writes
> >Dealing with your first point, I do
agree and you are imho, quite
> >correct about the abuse from legacy
resources.
> no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources
:(
> >However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use
of a
> >resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another
resource
> >So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including
legacy
> >resources...
> >Thank you for your feedback about,
sanctioned, but it exists only to
> >reflect
>
> you've
missed my point
>
I have not.
> you define abuse as "non
sanctioned" activity... that is, activity
> for which permission has
not been granted. Fair enough (so far as it
> goes)
>
I do
no such thing...
> you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement
:-( rather than
> setting out a definition which has something to do with
the complexity
> of what permission means.
>
no, you are wrong
again...
Let me help you with it?
Abuse core definition: - Read it
:: s l o w l y
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
use
of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another
resource
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then,
read my previous reply, again?
Richard,
Dealing with your
first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
correct about the abuse from
legacy resources.
However, the current definition of Internet abuse is:
--> use of a
resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another
resource
So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy
resources...
Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists
only to
reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses"
the
richard@example.com resource - by deleting richard@ (of course
this
extends to RIR and other resources as well)
In the case of
'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is
denied the use of that
resource by new 'administrative holder' of
rights to that resource, that
would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse'
would in fact be
sanctioned.
So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the
right way
around and is correct?
Thank you so much for contributing
and helping
Andre
On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100
Richard
Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
>
>======================
> >Definition of Internet abuse
>
>======================
> >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to
infringe upon the usage
> >rights of another resource"
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Terminology used in the above definition
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
> >(5)
Sanctioned
> >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor
or
> >administrative holder of rights to a resource
> that
definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to
>
say
> (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such
continuing
> isolation, but you might as well make it coherent)
>
BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to
> abuse
of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is
> made
that there can be no administration of them ...
>
> - --
>
richard
Richard
> Clayton
>
> Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nor Safety. Benjamin
> Franklin 11 Nov 1755
>
> -----BEGIN
PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
>
>
iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
>
bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
> =9ogY
> -----END PGP
SIGNATURE-----
>
End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59,
Issue
11
*********************************************