Only for those who feed with the practice of abuse.
This just keeps getting better than stand-up comic.
Until...
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-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing
the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner@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: Definition of
Abuse (Gert Doering)
2. Re: Definition of Abuse (Gert
Doering)
3. Re: Definition of Abuse (Sascha Luck
[ml])
4. Re: Definition of Abuse
(andre@ox.co.za)
5. Re: Definition of Abuse
(andre@ox.co.za)
6. Unsubscribe (Eoin C.
Bair?ad)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
1
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:15:19 +0200
From: Gert Doering
<gert@space.net>
To: andre@ox.co.za
Cc:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of
Abuse
Message-ID: <20160814191519.GM79185@Space.Net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at
07:55:01AM +0200, andre@ox.co.za wrote:
> Definition of Abuse as it should
be defined by RIPE
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another
resource
I like this.
I'm not sure if there are "false positives",
but the general idea feels
good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to
match what I consider
"abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course,
this is now tied to
what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage
rights".
Gert Doering
--
NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet
AG
Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen
14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807
Muenchen
HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49
(0)89/32356-444
USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text
attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type:
application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160814/de49bb91/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message:
2
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200
From: Gert Doering
<gert@space.net>
To: andre@ox.co.za
Cc:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of
Abuse
Message-ID: <20160814192614.GN79185@Space.Net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at
09:15:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > The use of a resource to
infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
>
> I like
this.
>
> I'm not sure if there are "false positives", but the
general idea feels
> good, and thinking about it a bit, it seems to match
what I consider
> "abuse" and does not match "non-abuse" - of course,
this is now tied to
> what someone would consider as "infringe upon usage
rights".
Thinking about this some more, this doesn't work "as is",
because there
are legal reason why someone could infringe on someon else's
use rights
- in cases specifically permitted by law.
(Like, you're not
permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone else's
"freedom to move" -
but there are reasons permitted by law when this is
totally appropriate and
not considered "abuse")
Complicated.
Gert
Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet
AG
Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen
14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807
Muenchen
HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49
(0)89/32356-444
USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text
attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type:
application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160814/243abafe/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message:
3
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:08:14 +0100
From: "Sascha Luck [ml]"
<aawg@c4inet.net>
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re:
[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse
Message-ID:
<20160814200814.GQ862@cilantro.c4inet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 09:15:19PM +0200,
Gert Doering wrote:
>> The use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
rights of
>> another resource
>
>I like
this.
I...don't.
It is a meaningless political expression
that can mean anything
to anyone. Nothing anyone does will not make
someone else feel
their "rights" are being "infringed
upon".
rgds,
Sascha
Luck
------------------------------
Message:
4
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:04:24 +0200
From: andre@ox.co.za
To:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of
Abuse
Message-ID:
<mailman.1365.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200
Gert
Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
<snip snip>
> - in cases
specifically permitted by law.
> (Like, you're not permitted to use
"force" to infringe on someone
> else's "freedom to move" - but there are
reasons permitted by law
> when this is totally appropriate and not
considered "abuse")
>
> Complicated.
> Gert
Doering
Good point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone
does
will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being
"infringed
upon"
We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not
to do that, it is
patently an obstruction of the working of this very
group.
The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not
to
constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition -
are
those with nefarious intent.
There simply is no other socially,
ethically and openly acceptable
reason to obstruct the process of defining
what constitutes abuse.
So, if we adapt the definition
then:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition
of Abuse as it should be defined by
RIPE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The
non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another
resource
Reasoning
-------------------------
"Sanctioned" - can
have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as
"usage rights".
The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone
what
to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes
everything
I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as
general
as possible, to find a balance between freedom and
responsibility.
Andre
------------------------------
Message:
5
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:16:17 +0200
From: andre@ox.co.za
To:
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of
Abuse
Message-ID:
<mailman.1366.1471250259.19326.anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
All,
My response was to off
list 'comments" and I apologize to the list.
I clicked send, too soon, so I
retract my previous post and offer only
the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition
of Abuse as it should be defined by
RIPE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The
non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another
resource
Reasoning
-------------------------
"Sanctioned" - can
have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as
"usage rights".
The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone
what
to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes
everything
I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as
general
as possible, to find a balance between freedom and
responsibility.
Andre
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:04:24
+0200
andre@ox.co.za wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14
+0200
> Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
> <snip
snip>
> > - in cases specifically permitted by law.
> >
(Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone
> >
else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law
> >
when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse")
> >
> > Complicated.
> > Gert Doering
>
> Good
point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone does
> will not
make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed
> upon"
>
> We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not to do that,
it
> is patently an obstruction of the working of this very group.
>
> The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not to
>
constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition - are
>
those with nefarious intent.
>
> There simply is no other socially,
ethically and openly acceptable
> reason to obstruct the process of
defining what constitutes abuse.
>
> So, if we adapt the definition
then:
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
rights
> of another resource
>
>
> Reasoning
>
-------------------------
> "Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so
can "resource" as well
> as "usage rights".
>
> The above
covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what
> to do or
what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes
>
everything
>
> I feel it is important to make the definition as
simple and as general
> as possible, to find a balance between freedom and
responsibility.
>
> Andre
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date:
Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:22:45 +0000
From: Eoin C. Bair?ad
<EBairead@mazars.ie>
To: "'anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net'"
<anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg]
Unsubscribe
Message-ID:
<825E4D78EE6C0F4EA56FE864501E3E93CAD9500A@mazars15.mazars.local>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Unsubscribe me please
Eoin C.
Bair?ad
IT
Mazars
Block 3 The Harcourt Centre
Charlotte
Street
Dublin 2
phone: +353 (1) 4494490
fax: +353 (1)
4750089
mobile: +353 (87)
2311357
#####################################################################################
Internet
communications are not secure and the firm does not accept legal responsibility
for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
firm.
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain
confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not,
directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of
this message if you are not the intended recipient.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This
e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by NetIQ
MailMarshal
#####################################################################################
--------------
next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160815/f31e1a47/attachment.html>
End
of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 58, Issue
21
*********************************************