On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:19:07 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

I asked about AUP clauses

We were not talking about AUP clauses. You were using that in an attempt to highlight your point.

You’re asking me back questions about SMTP and bounce handling

Doing what you are doing. And pointing out that the AUP's you are referring to are written by, at the least, non ethical people and at the most, dishonest people.

That is not an answer to my question, and nor does it follow the socratic method of trying to answer a question by asking more questions, because your line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

and round and round it goes. You cannot have cake and give cake away. So, either make your point on a solid foundation, or accept that your point is without foundation.

On 04/10/16, 9:16 PM, "ox" <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of > various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a > better informed reply. > It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being > better informed.

not sure how to respond to that, as it is fairly personally directed, but I will try... Just because various large ISPs and email providers says something it does not mean that it has to be accepted by society. Or even that anything and/or everything they say in common is correct, accurate or fair in an open,ethical and just society.

a singular and simple example would be Google.com

When their servers behave abusively they bounce emails to their clients saying that the sender has an error.

ethical? - no. fair? - no no evil? - no. decent? - no. nice? - no.

do I have to believe and trust the largest email provider on the planet earth, Google? - no.

> > On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre@ox.co.za> wrote: > > > Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent > reply, for clarity: > You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine > behavior. > To that I respond: I do not agree with you. > > I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is > behaving like an Ass. > I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are > talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a > Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. > > Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of > Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply > to that still open thread? > > The rest of your diatribe: > regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a > result of "Internet Abuse" - so abuse@hetzner.de has to enforce > the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused > about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. > > And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many > examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with > "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that > everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it > so easy - it makes abuse@anywhere have to handle everything... > > Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the > case. > Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on > pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to > the abuse of bovines in general) > > anyway, I get your response(s) as well. > > and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply > apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so > yet another example of perspective and point of view... > > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of > > andre@ox.co.za> wrote: > > > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes > > > Internet abuse > > > > That is painfully clear to me. > > > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the > > German equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally > > classified as internet abuse handling, that is a separate > > legal process that each ISP handles per the advice of > > their legal team. > > > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set > > best practice is evolving in that direction, but that is > > entirely moot in this context. > > > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are > > related to issues other than copyright infringement, on > > which there is broad consensus in ISP acceptable use > > policy and national law. > > > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into > > banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of > > internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to > > use another such metaphor, asinine. > > > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this > > group – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE > > region just happened to be in the room during an AOB > > session to remove Richard Cox from his role. > > > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status > > quo, and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from > > several people with zero background in carrier grade > > internet abuse mitigation (rather than databases, whois, > > routing and such), and I get that. > > > > --srs > > > > > > > >