[anti-abuse-wg] How Not To Ask For A Website to Be taken Down

On Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:52:44 am Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <201012230917.20959.kzorba at otenet.gr>,
> 
> Kostas Zorbadelos <kzorba at otenet.gr> wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 23, 2010 08:59:43 am Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >

If I may use an "analogy" from the programming world you seem to quite 
overload the meaning of words.
To me the thing is as clear as this: a discussion was raised because of an 
abuse report sent to someone and it was written and addressed in such a way 
that the recipient could have mistaken it as SPAM. 
Now I get that you are saying that we should generally not use in the "real 
world" abuse contacts to send reports or anything else related to abuse. To me 
this doesn't make sense.

Having said this, I consider the case closed. I think that we (as a group) 
should try to produce more meaningful and actual work on anti-abuse. But this 
is the subject of a different mail I intend to send to the list a bit later...

Regards,

Kostas   

> >Now, let me see if I get this right...
> >This post contains more than a 1000 words, to argue about NOT using abuse
> >contacts, in the real world,
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >and this is how reports should be sent?
> 
> This last part of your sentence seems entirely disconnected and unrelated
> to the first part.  If there was in fact some connection between the two
> which you intended to convey, please do enlighten me about what that might
> be.
> 
> The first part seems to be about a message I sent as part of a discussion
> (hopefully a detailed and intelligent one) here on the RIPE Anti-Abuse
> working group mailing list, while the latter part seems to be about how
> e-mails sent to ISP abuse@ contacts should or should not appear.
> 
> Was there some rule somewhere that says that both types of communication
> should be of similar style and/or of equal length?  If so, I missed that.
> 
> >I am definitely missing something here...
> 
> Either you are or I am.  One of the two.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg