- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by peter h 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

On Monday 13 February 2017 15.09, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote: > > On 13 فبر, 2017 ص 09:42, Marilson wrote: > > Finally someone telling the truth. > > Yesterday Peter H answering to Olaf: > > >> SPAM... is NOT... abuse. spam is fully legal. neither technical > > abuse nor a crime or anything else > > > WRONG. SPAM is illegal in sweden and EU. > spam is fully legal in all of the eu as far as 1: the addressee is a > business entity OR 2: the addressee opted in (including indirect opt-ins > through partners etc). The above is , of course wrong. spam is illegal, and delivered by illegal means, usually by breking into someones computer and using a bystanders Internet resources. As regards to opt-in, there is no thing as "indirect opt-ins" The rest of the confusing message is left out to save electrons ;.) > zsnip> > -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )

1 0

Why spam is abuse in several aspects
by peter h 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Spam is a plague that costs us a lot in time and money. It's the abuseive habit off sending ads and malware through stolen channels. If spammers were running their own server and paying for their Internet access it would be a lot less of a problem. But as it is (and have been that last 10 years) compute resources are stolen ( by breaking into personal computers and phones) and have those innocent bystanders pay the cost. Spammers also use the stolen computers owners to pay for the Internet traffic, unknowingly. It also conflicts with the users own use as the bandwitdh is eaten upp by the parasitic software that spammers have inplanted. A large part of the spam sent contains viral malware that keeps the spammers resources intact, as computer owners clean their systems, spammers has to refresh their "inventory". ISP's have part of this scam. Some, but not all, ISP ignores the spam traffic, in spite of several methods available to detect and block. The end result is that people uses "deny-lists" or public blocklists to block spam from ip addresses or ranges. As ISP often uses DHCP for the client computers it won't help to block a single ip, one have to block the ISP's whole range to prevent a single spammer from annoying. Is SMTP wrong ? Certenly not. It's designed as an autonom and distributed method of sending messages. It's the very autonomous design that keps it from censorship and kommercial starnglehood. The problem is that the "highways" has no police that stop speeders and roadpirats. My wish is that spem should be considered as the terrorist status as it is, regarding the amout of time it takes from our lifes, every day. -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by Marilson 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Finally someone telling the truth. Yesterday Peter H answering to Olaf: >> SPAM... is NOT... abuse. spam is fully legal. neither technical abuse nor a crime or anything else > WRONG. SPAM is illegal in sweden and EU. >> and in the few cases where it could be a crime, just call the feds. it's their job, not the isps. > ISP's is cooperating in this crime. They know the crime, they know how to prevent it and they don't. It's worst, Peter! Even when it's a criminal scammer, they try to hide him changing their domain. Greed borders on psychopathy. The fictional character Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is a Mother Teresa of Wall Street when compared. Peter, my friend Olaf is my enemy. He does not agree to criminalize ISPs. You and I know that many ISPs are complicit in these illicit activities and enable the existence of sp(c)ammers. After all are 'only' 473 billion spam PER DAY. If Olaf does not stop blaming the Jews his messages will not be posted on this list. Anyone who is not happy with the actions of the Jews in the world economy should try to be as competent as they are and do differently. After all their Nobel Prize collection was not bought. Olaf, I'll give you a real reason to vent your anger. The Jews invented a tool that caused, causes and will continue to cause so many evils that makes the holocaust an event without expression: monotheism. This tool is the legacy of the Jews for humanity. If it does not extinguish mankind. Peter, meet my friend-enemy Olaf. Co-chair wrote to Olaf: >> Please let me know how you think we can proceed. Olaf answered: > you can start by letting mine and marilsons's mails through again... eventhough i probably don't agree on marilsons standpoint that 'isps are criminals'... we must point out that isps OWN RIPE. and ripe owns this mailinglist. > they are free to go to the IETF and/or ITU and write a new RFC for a new protocol with a friends list and confirmed senders, and solve it that way Solve? Someone wants to fix this? We first Marilson Never so few done so much harm to so many. From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 9:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)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(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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: Why SPAM exists in 2017 (peter h) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:33:46 +0100 From: peter h <peter(a)hk.ipsec.se> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017 Message-ID: <201702120833.46899.peter(a)hk.ipsec.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I received this with a personal mail message, i find it interesting enough to share with the list: On Saturday 11 February 2017 23.29, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote: > simple: why spam 'exists' in 2017 is that 1: it's legal 2: it's not even > real abuse even if it would be illegal (it does not use any protocol or > service daemon outside of it's technically specified bounds) and 3: you > never bothered to modify your antique protocol to include a friends list > or encryption keys to select 'senders' based on a contact request or > pre-shared keys. > > the question is more why is 'spam' being considered 'abuse' on this > mailinglist in 2017 when there are tons of -actual- REAL abuses on a > network level going on every single day. > > > SPAM... is NOT... abuse. spam is fully legal. neither technical abuse > nor a crime or anything else WRONG. SPAM is illegal in sweden and EU. > > and in the few cases where it could be a crime, just call the feds. it's > their job, not the isps. ISP's is cooperating in this crime. They know the crime, they know how to prevent it and they don't. The rest of this message deleted .. > zsnip> > Spam exists as ISP across the world, with some excemptions, don't do even the most basic > > procedures to detect and stop spam from their networks. Shame on them ( but it is cheap ) > > > > -- Peter H?kanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det ?r billigare att g?ra r?tt. Det ?r dyrt att laga fel. ) End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 14 *********************************************

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by peter h 12 Feb '17

12 Feb '17

I received this with a personal mail message, i find it interesting enough to share with the list: On Saturday 11 February 2017 23.29, HRH Prince Sven Olaf von CyberBunker wrote: > simple: why spam 'exists' in 2017 is that 1: it's legal 2: it's not even > real abuse even if it would be illegal (it does not use any protocol or > service daemon outside of it's technically specified bounds) and 3: you > never bothered to modify your antique protocol to include a friends list > or encryption keys to select 'senders' based on a contact request or > pre-shared keys. > > the question is more why is 'spam' being considered 'abuse' on this > mailinglist in 2017 when there are tons of -actual- REAL abuses on a > network level going on every single day. > > > SPAM... is NOT... abuse. spam is fully legal. neither technical abuse > nor a crime or anything else WRONG. SPAM is illegal in sweden and EU. > > and in the few cases where it could be a crime, just call the feds. it's > their job, not the isps. ISP's is cooperating in this crime. They know the crime, they know how to prevent it and they don't. The rest of this message deleted .. > zsnip> > Spam exists as ISP across the world, with some excemptions, don't do even the most basic > > procedures to detect and stop spam from their networks. Shame on them ( but it is cheap ) > > > > -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by Jeffrey Race 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

See <http://www.jeffreyrace.com/nugget/spam_05.pdf> As accurate today as when written. On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:11:40 +0200, ox wrote: >Hello Everyone, > >Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no >longer exist by 2006. > >More than a decade later, spam even penetrates the very best "insert whatever >name here" technology. > >It is 2017 and apparently society does not understand why spam still exists. > >Of course, all of us know why there is still spam. >//donning flame retardant suit (and tinfoil hat for good measure... ) > >For those that lurk to learn, or, for anyone with no pov on why there is still spam: > >******************************** >Spam exists because society does not agree on a single protocol to stop spam. >(We do not all even agree on the definition of what spam is.) >In society, some filter emails by DNS, some by IP number (worrying about >dropping emails from co-located domains that have not updated their >wordpress and are pumping out 1 legit email for every 1000 spam, etc >etc - we should also discuss this sometime?) >******************************** > >The concern for "false positives" outrank that of sender reputation and is out of whack. >(and we, society, do not want to change this) > >let us take a closer look at a practical (and factual) example of this imbalance: > >Fact: Both Google.com and Yahoo.com send out spam (unsolicited bulk >email - where bulk is defined as more than one or two of the same email and >unsolicited - as simply not requested or expected) > >Fact: We all receive many times more spam from yahoo.com as we do from google.com >even though google.com transmits many times more ham than yahoo.com >(Another simple truth: We all receive much more criminal activity from yahoo.com >than from google.com) > >If you wish to dispute these simple and factual numbers you can look at >the IP ranges in public data related to abuse, as the statistics report exactly >the same facts that I am claiming (and experiencing)) > >Yet, we will be hard pressed to 'drop" incoming from yahoo.com simply >based on sender score, we also do not use other RBL, that lists Google.com >IP numbers, for drop. (as our users would have hissy fits if they did not get email >from example@yahoo or example@gmail - in fact - they may simply move >their email hosting to google... - because google/yahoo cannot be >wrong, it has to be @example_of_small_isp... > >Our user(s) want to receive email from grandma, even though grandma has >just dumped 10000 unsolicited emails asking for donations to send her >old age club to the beach for "insert name of special and/or religious holiday here" > >Your thoughts? > >Andre > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12
by Marilson 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

Why SPAM exists... Because ISP exists. Because in 2004 Trump was not President... Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 9:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)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(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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. Why SPAM exists in 2017 (ox) 2. Re: Why SPAM exists in 2017 (peter h) 3. Re: Why SPAM exists in 2017 (Richard Clayton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:11:40 +0200 From: ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017 Message-ID: <mailman.2.1486810802.25905.anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hello Everyone, Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no longer exist by 2006. More than a decade later, spam even penetrates the very best "insert whatever name here" technology. It is 2017 and apparently society does not understand why spam still exists. Of course, all of us know why there is still spam. //donning flame retardant suit (and tinfoil hat for good measure... ) For those that lurk to learn, or, for anyone with no pov on why there is still spam: ******************************** Spam exists because society does not agree on a single protocol to stop spam. (We do not all even agree on the definition of what spam is.) In society, some filter emails by DNS, some by IP number (worrying about dropping emails from co-located domains that have not updated their wordpress and are pumping out 1 legit email for every 1000 spam, etc etc - we should also discuss this sometime?) ******************************** The concern for "false positives" outrank that of sender reputation and is out of whack. (and we, society, do not want to change this) let us take a closer look at a practical (and factual) example of this imbalance: Fact: Both Google.com and Yahoo.com send out spam (unsolicited bulk email - where bulk is defined as more than one or two of the same email and unsolicited - as simply not requested or expected) Fact: We all receive many times more spam from yahoo.com as we do from google.com even though google.com transmits many times more ham than yahoo.com (Another simple truth: We all receive much more criminal activity from yahoo.com than from google.com) If you wish to dispute these simple and factual numbers you can look at the IP ranges in public data related to abuse, as the statistics report exactly the same facts that I am claiming (and experiencing)) Yet, we will be hard pressed to 'drop" incoming from yahoo.com simply based on sender score, we also do not use other RBL, that lists Google.com IP numbers, for drop. (as our users would have hissy fits if they did not get email from example@yahoo or example@gmail - in fact - they may simply move their email hosting to google... - because google/yahoo cannot be wrong, it has to be @example_of_small_isp... Our user(s) want to receive email from grandma, even though grandma has just dumped 10000 unsolicited emails asking for donations to send her old age club to the beach for "insert name of special and/or religious holiday here" Your thoughts? Andre ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:40:44 +0100 From: peter h <peter(a)hk.ipsec.se> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017 Message-ID: <201702110940.44617.peter(a)hk.ipsec.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Saturday 11 February 2017 09.11, ox wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no > longer exist by 2006. > <snip> > Your thoughts? > > Andre Spam exists as ISP across the world, with some excemptions, don't do even the most basic procedures to detect and stop spam from their networks. Shame on them ( but it is cheap ) -- Peter H?kanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det ?r billigare att g?ra r?tt. Det ?r dyrt att laga fel. ) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:31:32 +0000 From: Richard Clayton <richard(a)highwayman.com> To: ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017 Message-ID: <TJ9nk8EEgunYFAxS(a)highwayman.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> writes >Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no >longer exist by 2006. he believed that the "Penny Black" scheme would work... he was wrong, the bad guys have more resources to hand than the good guys and so a system based on proof-of-work could not be effective some of us explained this at the time ... http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork2.pdf - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBWJ7oBDu8z1Kouez7EQJJPgCfeXB+CvbraOtUzHi5FVPmio9x6XsAn2xS XzUinA/Dr9A0/PMQfqR6LFuu =hLfY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 12 *********************************************

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by Richard Clayton 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> writes >Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no >longer exist by 2006. he believed that the "Penny Black" scheme would work... he was wrong, the bad guys have more resources to hand than the good guys and so a system based on proof-of-work could not be effective some of us explained this at the time ... http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork2.pdf - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBWJ7oBDu8z1Kouez7EQJJPgCfeXB+CvbraOtUzHi5FVPmio9x6XsAn2xS XzUinA/Dr9A0/PMQfqR6LFuu =hLfY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Why SPAM exists in 2017
by peter h 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

On Saturday 11 February 2017 09.11, ox wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no > longer exist by 2006. > <snip> > Your thoughts? > > Andre Spam exists as ISP across the world, with some excemptions, don't do even the most basic procedures to detect and stop spam from their networks. Shame on them ( but it is cheap ) -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )

1 0

Why SPAM exists in 2017
by ox 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

Hello Everyone, Famously, during 2004, Bill Gates promised the world that Spam would no longer exist by 2006. More than a decade later, spam even penetrates the very best "insert whatever name here" technology. It is 2017 and apparently society does not understand why spam still exists. Of course, all of us know why there is still spam. //donning flame retardant suit (and tinfoil hat for good measure... ) For those that lurk to learn, or, for anyone with no pov on why there is still spam: ******************************** Spam exists because society does not agree on a single protocol to stop spam. (We do not all even agree on the definition of what spam is.) In society, some filter emails by DNS, some by IP number (worrying about dropping emails from co-located domains that have not updated their wordpress and are pumping out 1 legit email for every 1000 spam, etc etc - we should also discuss this sometime?) ******************************** The concern for "false positives" outrank that of sender reputation and is out of whack. (and we, society, do not want to change this) let us take a closer look at a practical (and factual) example of this imbalance: Fact: Both Google.com and Yahoo.com send out spam (unsolicited bulk email - where bulk is defined as more than one or two of the same email and unsolicited - as simply not requested or expected) Fact: We all receive many times more spam from yahoo.com as we do from google.com even though google.com transmits many times more ham than yahoo.com (Another simple truth: We all receive much more criminal activity from yahoo.com than from google.com) If you wish to dispute these simple and factual numbers you can look at the IP ranges in public data related to abuse, as the statistics report exactly the same facts that I am claiming (and experiencing)) Yet, we will be hard pressed to 'drop" incoming from yahoo.com simply based on sender score, we also do not use other RBL, that lists Google.com IP numbers, for drop. (as our users would have hissy fits if they did not get email from example@yahoo or example@gmail - in fact - they may simply move their email hosting to google... - because google/yahoo cannot be wrong, it has to be @example_of_small_isp... Our user(s) want to receive email from grandma, even though grandma has just dumped 10000 unsolicited emails asking for donations to send her old age club to the beach for "insert name of special and/or religious holiday here" Your thoughts? Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 10
by Marilson 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Thank you very much Mr chair or co-chair... whatever... You did again. You picked up my answer to Mr. Jeffrey and eliminated paragraphs and spaces. You put it all together. With my bad English nor I understand what I wrote. The RIPE reminds me of the bathhouse (a euphemism for a brothel) from the movie Miyazaki's Spirited Away. A dark tale where Chihiro has to satisfy a series of grotesque customers. And always working in the shadows under the cloak of "refined persons". Marilson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 12:24 PM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 10 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)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(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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 63, Issue 8 (Marilson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:24:31 -0200 From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa(a)gmail.com> To: <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Cc: jrace(a)attglobal.net, andre(a)ox.co.za Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8 Message-ID: <13AE051340D540B0AB1C4DF421990193@xPC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Tell me, are you open to criticism or are cowards. > Really, none of this is useful or in any way related to network abuse. That phrase would only make sense if it were said before distilling your poison. If it were said before sending me away politely. You could say, hey man, you are not welcome here, go away. Or you can say this "politely" as you did, but it's the same thing. What you call politeness is, in fact, hypocrisy. It is the acts that qualify people, not what they write. > This is a list to discuss, in a professional manner, ways to deal, via technology, policy or other methods, with abuse on the Internet. It is what you have been doing for three years (?) Without any consequence or reduction of abuse to the internet user. > Thankfully this is what the vast, vast majority of people on this list do. The vast, vast majority of people on this list represent ISPs ? they are fox taking care of henhouse. > It is not a place to attack others I've been attacked several times, as I am now, and no one says shit. > It's a place to work together, to find common ground and to reach consensus There was always consensus in this pro-abuse-wg. > It is also not a place to directly report abuse. The directly report abuse shows how and who is practicing abuse. But you're right. This is useless information because the goal is not to outlaw the criminal actions of ISPs, but rather to guarantee the billing that this criminal attitude achieves. > If you aren't here for that, then I suggest you go somewhere else on the Internet. This is the third time you've sent me away. Here, where the main perpetrators of Internet abuse are protected, is the right place. If you knew for whom I send hidden copy you would not be so comfortable in your easy speech. Mr. Jeffrey Race, most members of this group ?do not adopt revolutionary strategies not because they are too stupid to do so but because it is contrary to their interests.? Jeffrey, do you want deny this affirmation for the second time? Remember that? 1973? You decided to judge me without knowing anything at all about me. Perhaps this kind of behavior explains why your analyzes were criticized by your colleagues in America. I think you spent too much time in Thailand. And until today you have not learned that to analyze facts, behaviors, policies it is necessary to know the facts, the causes, the interrelationships. Or his verbiage will be no more than preconceptions. "Mr. Race is at least consistent in ignoring the facts." (The New York Review) I have 8,906 files with 750 MB of evidence against ISPs, evidence of fascist, psychotic and dishonest behavior from owners and ISP staff - evidence of abuse against humanity. Collected for three years. So, my dear, do not ignore the facts. > analysis based on evidence Do not dare say that this group uses evidence and I complain without proof. Whenever I tried to show types of abuse with evidence, they were censored. See how long this group exists and tell me if the abuse on the internet has had any reduction. This group exists to give a certain seriousness to the system that is rotten from so RIPE and dishonest. This group exists to ensure the permanence of the current status quo. After all are only 473 billion spam PER DAY. > you use the word 'fascist' which has a precise meaning in political science apparently as some generalized condemnation. > Psychopathy again has a precise definition in its field which you apparently don't know. Only you use this words with "a precise meaning in political science". For you, fascist must be a member of an undemocratic, authoritarian political regime centered on the figure of a dictator, right? Dude, you're still in your '50s America, a naive and prosperous society. I'll tell you a "novelty": the word fascist has synonyms ? authoritarian, totalitarian, autocratic, extreme right-winger, Nazi, blackshirt... And, if you are a psychopath or sociopath, you will be preferred to a CEO position. Why? The sociopath feels no empathy for people, or by family members. This is the professional that shareholders want. He will cheat, lie, deceive and steal millions of people without remorse. I do not need to give you examples, do I? And they are all REFINED PEOPLE par excellence. And people like you, Jeffrey, will always extend the red carpet to them. What counts is appearance and hypocrisy. This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to this group. > If you can limit your future contributions to the subject and the expectations of this group I am sure our colleagues will be happy to have you with us. My cultural and humanistic education (architect), my sense of justice, my duty as a citizen, my responsibility to my fellow citizens, prevent me from limiting myself to the expectations of this group. I want to put my head on the pillow and sleep, as always. I'll give you some advice Jeffrey, do not try to be sarcastic. Sarcasm is for smart people. By the way Jeffrey, your text is fraught with abuse and insult, ask Andre. In the first paragraph you called me inappropriate. In the second, ignorant. On the third, rude. In the fourth, violator of norms. Fifth, you tried to be sarcastic with my supposed inadequacy. And in the sixth, you sent me away. Who gave you the right to address me in this way? You're too arrogant. You act like a bastard with the appearance of REFINED PEOPLE. The fact that you insult me by using the REFINED PEOPLE technique does not give you the exemption you intend. It just ranks you as hypocritical. Your concept of morality and good manners is unworthy and rotten. It is based on appearance and hypocrisy. If I had a time machine I would send you to your dear 50's America. With love from 1950s Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 9:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 8 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg(a)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(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner(a)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: Language on List (ox) 2. Re: Language on List (Brian Nisbet) 3. Draft Minutes: RIPE73 AA-WG Meeting (Brian Nisbet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 07:27:05 +0200 From: ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> To: "Jeffrey Race" <jrace(a)attglobal.net> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Language on List Message-ID: <mailman.2.1486119602.29152.anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:24:10 -0500 "Jeffrey Race" <jrace(a)attglobal.net> wrote: <snip> > define yourself as refined or coarse. Coarse people > have fewer life opportunities because they are viewed as > inconsiderate of refined persons (who mostly control the > worlds institutions). > Goes back again to the 'definition of abuse' What is abuse? I could argue that Jeffrey Race posting about "refined persons" controlling "coarse persons" is abuse in itself. The "slavery" mentality (fits in with the extremely offensive and very sexist "Ladies & Gentlemen") - slavery plantations in the USA south much? You do realize that some of us has worked, seen and dealt with aberrations of atrocities so offensive as to cause severe stress (for those among us that are not sociopaths) > This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to my fellow > list members. > Jeffrey Race > If you are completely honest with your self, admit that there are other tenets of basic sociology that you are ignoring in your generalized statement. And again, pointing out that "refined people" control the world, is not helpful at all. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:53:36 +0000 From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Language on List Message-ID: <6d5b4e65-f23d-9f2f-3729-dda7e4a01dda(a)heanet.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Folks, Really, none of this is useful or in any way related to network abuse. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ On 03/02/2017 05:27, ox wrote: > On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:24:10 -0500 > "Jeffrey Race" <jrace(a)attglobal.net> wrote: > <snip> >> define yourself as refined or coarse. Coarse people >> have fewer life opportunities because they are viewed as >> inconsiderate of refined persons (who mostly control the >> worlds institutions). >> > Goes back again to the 'definition of abuse' What is abuse? > > I could argue that Jeffrey Race posting about "refined persons" > controlling "coarse persons" is abuse in itself. > > The "slavery" mentality (fits in with the extremely offensive and > very sexist "Ladies & Gentlemen") - slavery plantations in the USA > south much? > > You do realize that some of us has worked, seen and dealt with > aberrations of atrocities so offensive as to cause severe stress (for > those among us that are not sociopaths) > >> This is basic sociology. I hope it is helpful to my fellow >> list members. >> Jeffrey Race >> > If you are completely honest with your self, admit that there are other tenets > of basic sociology that you are ignoring in your generalized statement. > > And again, pointing out that "refined people" control the world, is not > helpful at all. > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:54:44 +0000 From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> To: "'anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net'" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Minutes: RIPE73 AA-WG Meeting Message-ID: <a0d87d0c-5599-202f-7567-e09d0ce44a99(a)heanet.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Colleagues, I've attached the draft minutes, lovingly prepared by the RIPE NCC, from our last meeting in Madrid. If you have any comments or corrections, please let me know. Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/

1 0