On 08/25/2016 03:36 PM, ox wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:28:58 +0200 Gunther Nitzsche <gnitzsche@netcologne.de> wrote:
On 08/25/2016 02:38 PM, ox wrote:
Get it yet?
No. Sorry. :-( okay, I will try to explain it better :)
Normal bitcoin mining abuse = You --> CPU
Anyway, Internet abuse same principle One resource --> another resource
Get it now? I know what you mean, but I don't follow you here. I do not want this restriction and cannot see one reason why you insist on this.
"If you use my server to do something. " Stop. I do not need "another resource". I wonder what arguments you have against my suggestion of wording.
I even doubt that the anti-abuse-working-group is limited to network based abuse. Entering wrong registration data (let's say by FAX) could also be covered by this group though it is not a network based abuse.
wrong registration data by fax - is not Internet abuse (doubtful if it even normal or just abuse...)
First: I do not know why you also insist on "internet abuse" - I did not see any mention of this restriction in the existing charter of this group Second: It might very well turn into "Internet abuse" i.e. when it comes to find out sources of (other) abuse related actions. If the whois-record is wrong, one could identify this registration fake as abuse. (the severity might vary) So it might be a good idea to have this issue on topic right from the beginning. In your definition a registration fake is no abuse because only one resource is involved *and* because it did not happen via the internet; in my definition it is and it belongs to the topics of this group. We can setup a doodle for this :) As long as we don't hear other opinions on this I step back again .. best greetings, Gunther
No artificial restrictions please; they might hurt us later on.
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