[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gunther Nitzsche
gnitzsche at netcologne.de
Thu Aug 25 17:40:04 CEST 2016
On 08/25/2016 04:38 PM, ox wrote: > ... > I did not reply to this, as it will involve me being somewhat direct but, > > I have a serious problem with people when they disagree just to argue > or for no real reason. Hmm.. I still do not see any arguments against my abuse definitions except: no, I want mine. You are getting somewhat emotional here - no good. > > This means that they have a different intent - or agenda - or something > and it serves only to disrupt > My intent is to have a most broad definition of abuse as possible. You seem to intentionally want to restrict this definition. I just don't know why. But if other members of this list tend more to your definition, it will be fine for me. >>>> I even doubt that the anti-abuse-working-group is limited to >>>> network based abuse. Entering wrong registration data (let's say by >>>> FAX) could also be covered by this group though it is not a network >>>> based abuse. >>>> > This is not an abuse group for battered men or battered women or abused > animals. What are you talking about? Yes, this group is not about animals, I agree .. but what the heck..? > > It is a network abuse group. > > No, it is not an abuse group for people whose pc's has been stolen or > abused in their homes. > > No, it is not an abuse group for old fax machines or faxing of fake > documents to anyone or even for that matter faxing of documents to > commit fraud. Says who? You are, as I do, a member of this mailing list and therefore a standard member of the anti-abuse-working-group. As far as I know you are no chair nor co-chair of this group and you are not in the position to define what to discuss in this group or not. (neither am I) I don't care if abuse is commited by old or new fax machines; if it somehow involves our/any abuse-department I do care. And if I (or i.e. legal authorities) cannot identify a fraudster because of a fake registration (DNS, IP-Allocation, whatsoever..) than I do see a direct relation to this group, regardless of the used technique. So yes, it *might* be the case that a fax triggers an abuse case. I don't want to talk about fax machines all the time - I just want a definition of abuse and of the goals of this group which *allows* me and others to discuss abuse incidents regardless of the terms "internet abuse" or "a second resource". I don't think, that this wish is that abstruse.. >It is the RIPE Anti Abuse WG --- We discuss network abuse.... Well, I do not see very much discussing here - just a very "blocking" attitude. tl;dr: I prefer a very broad definition of abuse not restricted to "internet abuse" best greetings, Gunther NetCologne Systemadministration -- NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln Geschäftsführer: Timo von Lepel, Mario Wilhelm Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Andreas Cerbe HRB 25580, AG Köln
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse - preamble
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]