sent by my phone
On Sep 13, 2016 6:04 PM, <anti-abuse-wg-requ...@ripe.net> wrote:

> 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-requ...@ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         anti-abuse-wg-ow...@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 <mich...@blacknight.com>
> To: Marilson <marilson.m...@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-a3c8-6c93e89f6...@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-boun...@ripe.net> on behalf of
> Marilson <marilson.m...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Marilson <marilson.m...@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-requ...@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-requ...@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-requ...@ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> anti-abuse-wg-ow...@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.m...@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 <rich...@highwayman.com>
> To: ox <an...@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+i0zizxf...@highwayman.com>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In message , ox <an...@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 <an...@ox.co.za>
> To: Richard Clayton <rich...@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...@ripe.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
> Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote:
> > In message , ox <an...@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
> rich...@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 <rich...@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
> *********************************************
> -------------- 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
> *********************************************
>

Reply via email to