[anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
peter h
peter at hk.ipsec.se
Fri Aug 17 15:28:44 CEST 2012
On Friday 17 August 2012 08.50, Frank Gadegast wrote: > lists at help.org wrote: > > >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse > > > > Hello Mr. Lists, > > well, you kind of forgot the discussion about this topic > you started a while ago ... its all in the archives. > > > first, this list changed its name from anti-spam-wg to > anti-abuse-wg, guess why ? > spam defines the problem on the senders side, and your right, > you cannot define spam because of different personal and legal > definitions, you can only use it as a more general term, > most people simply know what it is. A disagree. spam is a well defined thing. It's unsolcitated commercial email. What is lacking in many countries is a legal definition and sanctions for sending spam. We ought to be able to fight spam ( as an international problem) even if some countries does not have specific laws against it. > > (you can try and defined "live". I will be happy, if you could, > most people cannot and also have different definitions, > but most people also have the same ideas, when they talk > about "live". You can also try and define "red" ...) > > second, we are talking about abuse here > abuse is clearly definable, it happens on the receivers > side, its either abusing somebody personally and could > have various reasons or legal background, defined by different > countries law, organisation rules, whatever ... > > third, the same email could be abusive in one country or > when received by one person or organization or > whatever entity and could be ok with others You must diffrentiate between acts illegal in some country and spam. It's 2 completeley different things. Note that even person-to-person messages containg for instance childporn is illegal in many countries, but it is not spam. > > fourth, there is NO clear definition of abuse at the receivers > side because of those different "feelings" or laws, but this one: > ITS ABUSING HIM > > Therefore the definition of spam is pretty easy: > a spam email is an unwanted email that abusing the receiver > Now you have invented a "kitchen-variant" of definition os spam which most people disagrees with. Spam has nothing to do with any receiver beeing abused, it's only unsolicited commercial email(s). > Its disturbing him, tricking him, forcing him to do illegal > things, forcing him to buy things, he does not want, using > his resources in a way, he did not intent, using his time, > forcing him to learn and use techniques to get rid of it > or whatever. > He feels abused. Whats really annoying is that spam is delivered with stolen resources ( abusing peoples computers and tricking them in delivering their spews). So with spam there is two victims. the person who's resources is unknowingly abused to send spam , and the recipient that has to pay for receiving spam. > > And thats it. > > And this group simply tries to make it easy to prevent abuse, > if the abused one wants it ... > > > I am aware of this but it simply uses another unidentified term "spam." > > Using one undefined term to define another undefined term is not a > > standard. As an official spokesperson for a major security company you > > should know that. This is why most of these abuse groups look like they > > are run out of someone's Mother's basement. I think some people posting > > large signatures for a 3-word reply is spam so should they be > > blacklisted because I have that opinion? Should they be labeled an > > Well, I personally feel abused by people joining a discussion > without telling their name, dont reveal their background and > kind of hide. I feel uncomfortable with it, because I > do not get enough context to argue. > Furthermore I think, its rude ... Good day sir, my name is peter håkanson, which clearly was in my .sig. > > I also feel abused by discussing the same things all > over again ... If nothing happens then the same issues will come up again and again .. > > And so: I do not want most of your comments and mails, > they are unwanted and unsolicited to me personally, > they are using my time and energy to read and answer, > they are making me angry, because they are rude and > thats stopping me from arguing without fellings > only using facts, and thats making me even more > angry, and according to my definition: > I would call them spam ... Then please unsubscribe. Remember that thisis a opt-in list. > btw > And you can come with whatever argument, it will > not count, cause you already abused me and you > cannot take that back. > > > "abuser" or "spammer" or some other undefined term? > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, Frank > -- > PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de > Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de > Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 > 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 > ====================================================================== > -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] definition of abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]