[anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft RIPE 72 AA-WG Meeting Agenda
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
andre at ox.co.za
andre at ox.co.za
Fri Apr 22 10:32:18 CEST 2016
I wrote this: http://ascams.com/email-marketing/ would anyone please be so kind as to help/correct/add specifically point number 9 - anything that I have missed or, as there is point of view / POV (mine) - please comment so that I can see if I am wrong or by omission, am not reflecting the topic fairly? andre On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:37:09 +0200 andre at ox.co.za wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Handling abuse complaints (was: Abusive behavior by Google Inc)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft RIPE 72 AA-WG Meeting Agenda
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]