[anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)

you are a big person Esa, and much respect!  -please do not lurk? 
please help me work through the concepts below, so i can also
understand it more clearly or adjust/fix/add to my own POV?

I too am an idiot as I do silly things like rant and I apologise for
my emotional reaction :)

just that I would like life to be fair and when I see tech changes
that large business uses to grow an existing monopoly even more, it
triggers emotional response, which is completely wrong.

Regarding email, Google and Microsoft already have a monopoly, when
either of them employ weird tactics, like re-writing or obtuse of
email headers to deflect poorly on an innocent receiver, this does aid
to enforce (and grow) their monopoly and it serves to kill off the
small, ethical, honest providers.

I recall my first spam/abuse complaint :) 1988 I requested compuserve
to stop sending me unwanted comms about their dialup options - good
times :)

I am clearly not so good at communications, so please bear with me...

Why this type of abuse needs discussion here is two fold: 

Firstly, I do believe that abuse needs additional layer
definitions/wording as we become more sophisticated and start to more
clearly see how and what is abuse, we do realize that what came before
was abusive, we just did not know enough to understand the ethics of
it, at that time...

Secondly, if one flies, these layers would each have their own set of
ethics

Additional layers: If one applies the same differences between a
domain provider of email and an actual domain (example many different
people, companies, and well everyone? has email at gmail.com (except
maybe me - i deleted my account recently, i am no longer a google fanboy)

and a single business domain (so - consider the purpose / use /
application ) in the definition of the ethics to the definition of
abuse itself.

Just to backtrack...

lets look at how GOOGLE came to dominate the email landscape:

Gmail sent out what we now know, was SPAM! to various techies and
mailing lists, saying that that techie, mailing list subscriber, had
only 5 LIMITED TIME invites, that each could be used for a unique email
address at gmail.com

Google promised that - this would be exclusive (which was bullshit) 
Google promised that - Only these 5 invites would ever be able to have
an address at gmail.com (which was bullshit)
Google made the offer so sincere that nobody even thought  to compare
it with the various offers for c-i al is and other medication spam that
was already prevalent at the time...

Anyway, Google acted Unethically, dishonestly and even sent out MASS
UNSOLICITED EMAILS 

They also did various other interesting things, yet, Google enforces
"google ethics" on the Internet - they do this visibly and as
public as possible, there must be no single person that thinks that
google is in fact unethical themselves.

Okay, sorry about the backtrack/diatribe, just some background for
those that did not know that Google also acts unethically, and
abusively and actually has a track record of doing so, themselves.

The point of layers are : As we become more sophisticated and we
understand abuse better, even IPv4/6 abuse, there begs additional
words? concepts? for specifically the technical aspects evolving and
affecting the ethics of abuse itself.

This thread of an exact example of such a layer, in the email sphere
(also applies to IP) where it is not wthical to re-write headers for a
'public' or broad domain email provider and whereas it would be less
unethical for a direct or singular (as in a company email domain) to
re-write the same headers.

Then, if that reasoning is non flawed? is it? (It does need some
additional defining/discussion? ) then to define the ethics of
additional layers, or actually maybe just to identify that abuse ethics
needs clearer development?

andre




  

 

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:03:44 +0200
Esa Laitinen <esa at laitinen.org> wrote:

> Ahh. I didn't think I would put my foot in my mouth this way, and I do
> apologize the list for not paying enough attention to what was
> written. Teaches humility, this does.
> 
> @Andre: I do know how email works. I just misread the bounce in the
> quoted sentence as "complaint", twice. I apologize.
> 
> I'll go back lurking. I don't wish nanaesque behaviour to come back,
> there is enough of that already in the social media.
> 
> esa
> 
> 
> 
>