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.
>
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 on
Aug 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 Engineer
in Expertise Area of
Information Technology.
Good luck
Marilson
*******************************************************************
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM
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)
Sent: Monday,
January 11, 2016 5:48 PM
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
.:|:.:|:.
********************************************
Sent: Monday,
January 11, 2016 6:34 AM
Subject: Fw:
Spamcop error
Thank you for nothing, arrogants of
shit...
*******************************************
Sent: Friday,
December 11, 2015 12:11 PM
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 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:
Sent:
Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:55 PM
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
*****************************************************************
Sent:
Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14 PM
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