Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you
agree that we are succeeding.
Marilson
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
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
Internet Abuse * pre-final (Volker
Greimann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
1
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:31:36 +0200
From: Volker Greimann
<vgreimann@key-systems.net>
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re:
[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Message-ID:
<45504d89-5b20-515f-2f74-be65346fe8d7@key-systems.net>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
This entire exchange reminds
me of this scene:
https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE?t=41
"This is
abuse"
Best,
Volker
Am 02.09.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Hal
ponton:
> Hi All,
>
> I think this is getting a little abusive
here, can the tone be brought
> down a little to something a little more
acceptable please?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hal Ponton
>
Senior Network Engineer
>
> Buzcom / FibreWiFi
>
>>
Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa@gmail.com>
>> 2 September 2016 at
14:46
>> 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.
>>
>
>> technically ignorant
>> > extremely
belligerent
>> > how ignorant you are
>> >
>>
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
>> <mailto: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
>>
*******************************************************************
>>
*From:* Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:*
Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM
>> *To:* andre@ox.co.za
<mailto:andre@ox.co.za>
>> *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
>> *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
>> <mailto: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)
>> *From:*SpamCop/Richard
>> *Sent:*Monday, January
11, 2016 5:48 PM
>> *To:*marilson.mapa@gmail.com
>>
*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
>> .:|:.:|:.
>>
********************************************
>>
*From:*Marilson
>> *Sent:*Monday, January 11, 2016 6:34 AM
>>
*To:*privacy@cisco.com
>> *Subject:*Fw: Spamcop error
>> Thank
you for nothing, arrogants of shit...
>>
*******************************************
>>
*From:*Marilson
>> *Sent:*Friday, December 11, 2015 12:11
PM
>> *To:*privacy@cisco.com
>> *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 this IP the address
is*/abuse@proxad.net/*
>> 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:
>> *From:*Marilson
>>
*Sent:*Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:55 PM
>>
*To:*SpamCop/Richard
>> *Cc:*privacy@cisco.com;
guardian.readers@theguardian.com; The Wall
>> Street Journal;
spam@uce.gov; gmail-abuse@google.com
>> *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
>>
*****************************************************************
>>
*From:*SpamCop/Richard
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14
PM
>> *To:*Marilson
>> *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
>
> --
>
--
> Regards,
>
> Hal Ponton
> Senior Network
Engineer
>
> Buzcom /
FibreWiFi
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An
HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/d5ef1c69/attachment.html>
End
of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue
7
********************************************