sent by my phone
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. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
(Michele Neylon - Blacknight)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:34:06 +0000
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>
To: Marilson <marilson.mapa@gmail.com>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
<anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
Message-ID: <4A78AF9F-3FBD-403C-A3C8-6C93E89F6650@blacknight.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Non sanctioned in this context would mean ?without permission?
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blacknight.blog/
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net > on behalf of Marilson <marilson.mapa@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Marilson <marilson.mapa@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday 6 September 2016 at 22:57
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
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@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-request@ ripe.net >
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:37 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net >
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
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: <00A5F6C9CEEA4D26B48EF249C755BD 90@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/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvP CyK4SimvypTL/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/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvP CyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
> bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
> =9ogY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 11
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/ >attachments/20160913/7ef8c621/ attachment.html
End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 14
*********************************************