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@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@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@proxad.net To tiscali.fr, a subsidiary of tiscali.it, is abuse@it.tiscali.com Spamcop insists on using abuse@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@theguardian.com ; The Wall Street Journal ; spam@uce.gov ; gmail-abuse@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
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:20:21 -0300 "Marilson" <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Fw: Spamcop error
Thank you for nothing, arrogants of shit...
It is very clear what and who what you are Marilson.
...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
Clearly the problem here is that you, Marilson, completely overestimate your own technical skills and abilities. It is always very difficult to communicate with technically ignorant people, more so if they are also extremely belligerent.
From: SpamCop/Richard Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14 PM To: Marilson
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.
Very clearly, he is honorable and ethical, it is plain for all to see.
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
And all you posted was how ignorant you are. If I were you, I would approach a real Internet engineer and have him help you and explain to you how the Internet works. You obviously have a lot to learn but, you probably will not do that, what you will do is tell me how stupid I am or tell yourself that the problem is also with Andre, Andre is an idiot. etc etc. etc - Instead of actually reading what I am typing and improving yourself. (and stop calling entire communities: "arrogants of shit" or calling SpamCop deputies criminals) Andre
Insults usually get you ignored by any provider. It does not matter if you have a valid complaint, if you insult us you are disqualified. Best, Volker Am 01.09.2016 um 00:20 schrieb Marilson:
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@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@spamcop.net <mailto:support@spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical
On Aug 31, 2016 02:22 AM Andre Coetzee wrote: 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@proxad.net/* To */tiscali.fr/*, a subsidiary of */tiscali.it/*, is */abuse@it.tiscali.com/* Spamcop insists on using */abuse@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@theguardian.com; The Wall Street Journal; spam@uce.gov; gmail-abuse@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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
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@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 onAug 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 Engineerin Expertise Area of Information Technology. Good luck Marilson ******************************************************************* From: Marilson Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM To: andre@ox.co.za Cc: 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@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@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@proxad.net To tiscali.fr, a subsidiary of tiscali.it, is abuse@it.tiscali.com Spamcop insists on using abuse@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@theguardian.com ; The Wall Street Journal ; spam@uce.gov ; gmail-abuse@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
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
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@spamcop.net <mailto:support@spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical
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
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@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@spamcop.net <mailto:support@spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical
approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works 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: 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@ox.co.za <mailto:andre@ox.co.za> *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg@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: 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@proxad.net/* To */tiscali.fr/*, a subsidiary of */tiscali.it/*, is */abuse@it.tiscali.com/* Spamcop insists on using */abuse@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@theguardian.com; The Wall Street Journal; spam@uce.gov; gmail-abuse@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
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
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@spamcop.net <mailto:support@spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical
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
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@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@spamcop.net <mailto:support@spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical
approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works 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: 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@ox.co.za <mailto:andre@ox.co.za> *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg@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: 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@proxad.net/* To */tiscali.fr/*, a subsidiary of */tiscali.it/*, is */abuse@it.tiscali.com/* Spamcop insists on using */abuse@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@theguardian.com; The Wall Street Journal; spam@uce.gov; gmail-abuse@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
participants (4)
-
Hal ponton -
Marilson -
ox -
Volker Greimann