[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Tue Oct 4 17:55:46 CEST 2016
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:19:07 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > I asked about AUP clauses > We were not talking about AUP clauses. You were using that in an attempt to highlight your point. > You’re asking me back questions about SMTP and bounce handling > Doing what you are doing. And pointing out that the AUP's you are referring to are written by, at the least, non ethical people and at the most, dishonest people. > That is not an answer to my question, and nor does it follow the > socratic method of trying to answer a question by asking more > questions, because your line of reasoning is entirely irrelevant to > the matter being discussed. > and round and round it goes. You cannot have cake and give cake away. So, either make your point on a solid foundation, or accept that your point is without foundation. > > On 04/10/16, 9:16 PM, "ox" <andre at ox.co.za> wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > Do yourself a favour. Go review the acceptable use policies of > > various large ISPs and email providers. Then come back with a > > better informed reply. > > It is pointless to continue this discussion, without your being > > better informed. > > not sure how to respond to that, as it is fairly personally > directed, but I will try... > Just because various large ISPs and email providers says > something it does not mean that it has to be accepted by society. Or > even that anything and/or everything they say in common is correct, > accurate or fair in an open,ethical and just society. > > a singular and simple example would be Google.com > > When their servers behave abusively they bounce emails to their > clients saying that the sender has an error. > > ethical? - no. > fair? - no > no evil? - no. > decent? - no. > nice? - no. > > do I have to believe and trust the largest email provider on the > planet earth, Google? - no. > > > > > > > > > > On 04/10/16, 8:56 PM, "ox" <andre at ox.co.za> wrote: > > > > > > Just to point out, from your tediously long but eloquent > > reply, for clarity: > > You claim that trying to define Internet Abuse is asinine > > behavior. > > To that I respond: I do not agree with you. > > > > I do not think that trying to define Internet Abuse is > > behaving like an Ass. > > I do think that not defining Internet Abuse, if we are > > talking about Internet Abuse, and even if RIPE or an ISP or a > > Government is talking about Internet Abuse, is simply stupid. > > > > Regarding where we were at about the singular definition of > > Internet abuse, as it stood: it still stands. - You could reply > > to that still open thread? > > > > The rest of your diatribe: > > regarding Hetzner.de - The whole DMCA came about as a > > result of "Internet Abuse" - so abuse at hetzner.de has to enforce > > the German eq of DCMA - as Governments themselves are confused > > about what this "Internet Abuse" thing actually is. > > > > And, copyright etc is only one such example. There are many > > examples where other actions/crimes/etc are confused with > > "Internet Abuse" in fact, it has become so convenient that > > everything may simply be called "Internet Abuse" as it makes it > > so easy - it makes abuse at anywhere have to handle everything... > > > > Regarding status quo: but that does not have to be the > > case. > > Anyone that cares can agitate, push back and keep on > > pushing, pulling (even adding the odd bovanity (in reference to > > the abuse of bovines in general) > > > > anyway, I get your response(s) as well. > > > > and, for the record, Internet Abuse does not only/simply > > apply/relate to carrier grade internet abuse mitigation. - so > > yet another example of perspective and point of view... > > > > > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:33:20 +0530 > > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > > > <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of > > > andre at ox.co.za> wrote: > > > > > > > 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes > > > > Internet abuse > > > > > > That is painfully clear to me. > > > > > > Your Hetzner example was about DMCA (or whatever the > > > German equivalent is) enforcement which is not normally > > > classified as internet abuse handling, that is a separate > > > legal process that each ISP handles per the advice of > > > their legal team. > > > > > > It is peripheral to various abuse teams’ work so that set > > > best practice is evolving in that direction, but that is > > > entirely moot in this context. > > > > > > The RIPE region has several pockets of badness that are > > > related to issues other than copyright infringement, on > > > which there is broad consensus in ISP acceptable use > > > policy and national law. > > > > > > Your periodically trying to steer the discussion away into > > > banalities about the minutiae of a catchall definition of > > > internet abuse, let alone agricultural metaphors, is, to > > > use another such metaphor, asinine. > > > > > > I don’t expect any significant or useful action from this > > > group – not since most every “internet name” in the RIPE > > > region just happened to be in the room during an AOB > > > session to remove Richard Cox from his role. > > > > > > There just isn’t any will to disturb a comfortable status > > > quo, and a lot of fautuous arguments against it from > > > several people with zero background in carrier grade > > > internet abuse mitigation (rather than databases, whois, > > > routing and such), and I get that. > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Agenda - AA-WG RIPE73
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]