On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:06:20 -0300 "Marilson" <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> wrote:
You were talking about potatoes and I was talking about orange. The difference is that my orange was synonymous of Internet and their potato was ... potatoes. Just to be technically clear :) Pall, you are a real world example of a single resource abuse. But your definition still holds up... Good lucky Marilson
Your take away should be to learn better English :) When you say: My Computer was stolen It means that - Someone physically took your computer away from you And, this is exactly why we need a good definition of abuse. It is all about words. Marilson cannot use the word 'stolen' in reference to his PC being compromised, hacked or turned into a zombie as, in truth, his physical PC is still (I assume) sitting on his desk and is being used to be abusive... And, Marilson, telling me that I am an example of a single abuse resource, when all I am doing is simply trying to understand what the heck you are talking about (as you are using the wrong English words) is not cool. I did not once call you any names or say anything personally rude about you, I know exactly how fast things can be in a third or fourth or even fifth+ language :( Glad you accepted that there is no single resource abuse scenarios. And thank you for confirming but I know that the abuse definition still holds up. Andre
From: ox Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:42 AM To: Marilson Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:16:09 +0200
If a computer was infected for sending spam or malicious files, it was stolen. After all we are talking about Internet, right? Are you talking about what? Home invasion? Theft of objects? Just read what you, yourself are typing above: "If a computer was infected" - this means that: Someone or something did something Someone or Something (or a program or whatever) DID infect So, the definition of Internet Abuse, As I have stated it - Works
"Marilson" <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> wrote: perfectly fine. Maybe If you read the definition again, it can help you?
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
This means: Someone (or something) USED you resource (Your PC) to send spam or do something or use it for...
Just in case someone technical now wants to tell me that a "pc" is not an Internet Resource, PLEASE note: I am simply making it VERY simple so that Marilson can understand it also...
In the example - the internet resource would of course NOT be Marilson's PC - BUT his PC's resource (IP number, etc) or the resource that Marilson's PC uses, on the Internet, - to abuse ANOTHER resource...
Just to be technically clear :)
And then, there is still no real world example of a single resource abuse. So, I guess that means that the definition still holds up...
Andre
See?
- If someone steals your PC or breaks into your home to steal your pc It is NOT Internet Abuse...
If they break in and USE your PC to send spam - Then of course it is Internet Abuse - and the definition holds up.
BUT
You are changing the point... You were siding with Gunther, and what Gunther said was:
a Single resource can do Internet Abuse...
You are involving multiple resources and then claiming that it addresses the first problem...
Not cool, so either you are arguing for the simple sake of arguing or you do not understand the problem.
Which is it?
Andre