Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you agree that we are succeeding. Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 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
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
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
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
approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works 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: 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: 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
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:38:39 -0300 "Marilson" <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> wrote:
Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you agree that we are succeeding. Marilson
Which is why there is a desperate need to define what exactly is Internet Abuse, in terms of this WG. Abuse happens all the time, in many forms and "we all know it when we see it" As, people abuse shoes, their cars, each other. Abuse is too a wide ranging term and many ISP have varying Abuse policies all based loosely on their own corporate understanding of what constitutes "abuse" I will give one perfect and practical example: TWITTER.com - does not consider their own behavior of sending multiple unsolicited emails to incorrect or wrong email addresses, as Internet abuse. So, after my complaining in public, maybe Twitter may (or may not) change their behavior, but that is one HUGE example and the examples are millions. Is it "Internet Abuse" when me and Marilson may or may not abuse each other in email communications? Yes, it is abuse - No, it is not Internet Abuse. - Much confusion about what is Internet abuse and what it is not. So, again, instead of not contributing, please contribute to this discussion and let us define Internet Abuse... This is what there is thus far, please ADD, Discuss, Change, Improve: ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre@ox.co.za> writes
====================== Definition of Internet abuse ======================
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
-------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition --------------------------------------------------------
(5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource
that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to say (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing isolation, but you might as well make it coherent) BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is made that there can be no administration of them ... - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBV8xLSDu8z1Kouez7EQLpHgCeOuXOQ5JwXj2SnU1uXQsLnXMP0PQAoM38 HdckXLXGBM/+ckz6oEWgExNW =Lkz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Richard, Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite correct about the abuse from legacy resources. However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources... Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the richard@example.com resource - by deleting richard@ (of course this extends to RIR and other resources as well) In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse' would in fact be sanctioned. So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way around and is correct? Thank you so much for contributing and helping Andre On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to say (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing isolation, but you might as well make it coherent) BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is made that there can be no administration of them ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre@ox.co.za> writes
Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite correct about the abuse from legacy resources.
no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(
However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...
Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to reflect
you've missed my point you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity... that is, activity for which permission has not been granted. Fair enough (so far as it goes) you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity of what permission means. - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2 =9ogY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
In message , ox <andre@ox.co.za> writes
Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite correct about the abuse from legacy resources. no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :( However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources... Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to reflect
you've missed my point
I have not.
you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity... that is, activity for which permission has not been granted. Fair enough (so far as it goes)
I do no such thing...
you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity of what permission means.
no, you are wrong again... Let me help you with it? Abuse core definition: - Read it :: s l o w l y ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, read my previous reply, again? Richard, Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite correct about the abuse from legacy resources. However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources... Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the richard@example.com resource - by deleting richard@ (of course this extends to RIR and other resources as well) In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse' would in fact be sanctioned. So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way around and is correct? Thank you so much for contributing and helping Andre On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to say (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing isolation, but you might as well make it coherent) BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is made that there can be no administration of them ...
- -- richard Richard Clayton
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2 =9ogY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200 ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:
you've missed my point I have not. you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity... that is, activity for which permission has not been granted. Fair enough (so far as it goes)
I do no such thing... you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity of what permission means. no, you are wrong again...
for sanity, lets skip to the part where the word "non" reverses the permissiveness "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" So: You are right, sanctioned is very important - but - you are wrong about it being complex, it is not. It has two conditions - Sanctioned - OR non sanctioned Sanctioned itself, is the infringement (action) - by adding the negative or the second condition to the definition, it means that it is non permissive action exercised by the "assignor or administrative holder of rights" So, it caters full well for 'orphans & children' and legacy resources... as water flows downhill - with regards to Internet resources, and luckily for us, not also uphill... So, the administrative holder of any rights to a resource can change (as in I can sell my domain name to you) and then me removing your email address does not constitute 'abuse' I think that the simplicity of the definition is catching many people of guard? Andre ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action. (5) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message , ox <andre@ox.co.za> writes
====================== Definition of Internet abuse ======================
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
-------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition --------------------------------------------------------
(1) Resource Any Internet Resource
that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much
(4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action.
excellent, the negation has disappeared - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBV85dRTu8z1Kouez7EQIoUQCg9cCnxxLn3wXaSW8kMwSsFt21/AUAn1ry iMsqK26QCzGXAPGFJTffH5Wc =tqgd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:08:05 +0100 Richard Clayton <richard@highwayman.com> wrote:
"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource"
(1) Resource Any Internet Resource
that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much
Okay, how can it be improved? All Internet resources?
(4) Sanctioned An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or action.
excellent, the negation has disappeared
Yeah, but now it does not cater for orphan resources Remember that; If a resource is used with permission to abuse another resource = abuse So, the negation exists to allow the abuse to the resource (itself) by it's 'upstream' Which is why sanctioned - now works... (in the new order - after infringement...) (4) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource Andre
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:49:54 +0200 ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote:
you've missed my point I have not. you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity... that is, activity for which permission has not been granted. Fair enough (so far as it goes)
I do no such thing... you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity of what permission means. no, you are wrong again... for sanity, lets skip to the part where the word "non" reverses the
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200 ox <andre@ox.co.za> wrote: permissiveness
second reply to my own post :( I guess as this is core to the very list, and is complex, and I make many mistakes, myself, this requires replying to my own posts when I am wrong or say wrong things - as I am adding to confusion and not contributing :( Okay, Richard, I think I understand, you are saying that orphan resources do not have an "assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource" (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource --> What I am trying to say, long windedly, is that someone else pointed this out to me, off list, on the previous version of "sanctioned" Which then changed it to reflect that, and it now does cater for orphan resources, as I said in the reply before: water flows downhill Richard, I really and honestly appreciate your help! If you still think I am missing something - Please help by improving the "sanctioned" or explain to me with a practical example so that I can understand please? Andre ============ Internet Abuse ============ Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical. The Internet consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to also understanding the use and interaction between these resources. Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols, credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email addresses. This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define any rights to resources but simply to define what technically constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources. ====================== Definition of Internet abuse ====================== "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource" -------------------------------------------------------- Terminology used in the above definition -------------------------------------------------------- (1) Resource Any Internet Resource (2) Use and Usage Any direct or indirect action involving a resource (3) Rights The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or reasonable expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned resource (4) Infringe An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or encroaches upon the fair use of a resource (5) Sanctioned Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or administrative holder of rights to a resource
participants (3)
-
Marilson -
ox -
Richard Clayton