[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Thu Sep 1 11:16:26 CEST 2016
Insults usually get you ignored by any provider. It does not matter if you have a valid complaint, if you insult us you are disqualified. Best, Volker Am 01.09.2016 um 00:20 schrieb Marilson: > On Aug 31, 2016 02:22 AM Andre Coetzee wrote: > > Just this very long thread and all the confusion about what is actually > > Internet abuse and what is not - serves as plain and evident proof that > > even this, an actual anti-abuse WG, desperately needs a definition of > > Internet Abuse. Civil society is simply ignorant of their own > > requirement(s). > First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not > have mocked. > I do not know whether the members of the group desperately needs a > definition of Internet Abuse. But as a member of civil society, > non-technical in IT, end user of the Internet and real victim of > abuse, I can guarantee you that we need desperately is an ethical and > honest behavior on the part of ISPs. The rest has not the least > importance. > For me it is not clear your goal. But it is not of my business. And I > congratulate you again. But if you intend to use the technical > definition of Internet Abuse to decide whether the complaint of a > victim of abuse should or should not put a domain on the blocklist, > your group will not have credibility. You will be thwarting a real > victim of abuse to have his case met due to a technicality. > > 2. I am also ac at spamcop.net - SpamCop is also a community although > > operated graciously and ethically by Cisco. We are all honorable, > > ethical and honest people - I challenge you in public to tell me the > > name or email address of one SpamCop member that is not that? > You continue underestimating people. Sorry to disappoint you. I threw > a bait - spamcop - and you bit. ;) Regarding your challenge I will > make much more than you asked for. I will paste below the only two > messages between me and a spamcop member. And these messages occurred > only because I was forced to complain about the SpamCop by copying for > Cisco's Privacy Mailer. > All my messages addressed to support at spamcop.net > <mailto:support at spamcop.net> correcting the source of spam > identification were constantly ignored by these honorable and ethical > people. I was throwing away my time because the reports, via spamcop, > would never come to the sources of scam. To solve this I appealed to > Cisco: (follow the dates - had to insult to be attended) > *From:*SpamCop/Richard > *Sent:*Monday, January 11, 2016 5:48 PM > *To:*marilson.mapa at gmail.com > *Subject:*Re: Fw: Spamcop error > Thank you for the information. A cache refresh has changed the > reporting addresses used for 212.47.224.0/19 > > > Richard > Please include previous correspondence with replies > .:|:.:|:. > ******************************************** > *From:*Marilson > *Sent:*Monday, January 11, 2016 6:34 AM > *To:*privacy at cisco.com > *Subject:*Fw: Spamcop error > Thank you for nothing, arrogants of shit... > ******************************************* > *From:*Marilson > *Sent:*Friday, December 11, 2015 12:11 PM > *To:*privacy at cisco.com > *Subject:*Spamcop error > Gentlemen, your subsidiary*/Spamcop/* is incurring a mistake > repeatedly. I can not find a way or formulary to contact spamcop and > explain where the error is. > I appeal to you to resolve this problem: > I managed that a known Brazilian spammer, who uses spam to practice > embezzlement, be put out of 2 or 3 ISPs. Now he is using a new > provider - */Tiscali.fr/* - with the IP */212.47.244.217/*. > To this IP the address is*/abuse at proxad.net/* > To */tiscali.fr/*, a subsidiary of */tiscali.it/*, is > */abuse at it.tiscali.com/* > Spamcop insists on using */abuse at tiscali.fr/* > This address does not exist. If this is not corrected the criminal > spammer will not be denounced. > Thanks > Marilson > ******************************************* > As requests for corrections continued to be ignored, I decided to > check the send to the correctly identified sources. Now the > disappointment was absolute. No complaint was sent. More than a year > doing complaints and nothing was sent. I decided upending the tea > table and treat them with the respect they deserved: > *From:*Marilson > *Sent:*Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:55 PM > *To:*SpamCop/Richard > *Cc:*privacy at cisco.com; guardian.readers at theguardian.com; The Wall > Street Journal; spam at uce.gov; gmail-abuse at google.com > *Subject:*Re: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) > id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy.. > ...to help me identify the source of spam ?!? I don’t need help of > anyone to identify the source of spam. Several times I corrected your > wrong source. I do this better than your company. What I can not do is > block a domain. Yes, I opted to send a copy of each of these reports > to my own address *AND FOR THOSE NETWORKS REFERENCED IN SCAN.* > /> You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because we were > sending you mail, mail you sent yourself. / > Are you crazy? A half-wit? Is that your excuse for your criminal > behavior? I copied to Cisco’s Privacy Mailer because you never sent > any of my complaints for those networks referenced. During an entire > year, liar idiot. Countless hours were lost because of you, rascal. > You must to learn to respect the people. > (follow various insults that I can not repeat at this working group) > Marilson > ***************************************************************** > *From:*SpamCop/Richard > *Sent:*Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:14 PM > *To:*Marilson > *Subject:*Re: Fw: [SpamCop (208.84.242.164) > id:6470587522]=?UTF-8?B?Q09SUkVJT1MgLSBPYmpldG8gYWd1YXJkYW5kbyBy.. > I think you missed the point of my first writing. > > SpamCop has been here for the last year to help you identify the source > of spam you receive and help you send a complaint to the parties that > are responsible for those networks sending the spam. > > As part of your settings, you opted to send a copy of each of these > reports to your own address. This was an email from you (your SpamCop > account) to you. You then flipped out on Cisco's Privacy Mailer because > we were sending you mail, mail you sent yourself. > > SpamCop operates very independently of Cisco. The privacy office is in > place to ensure we operate according to the privacy policy published by > Cisco and to investigate where there is an accusation or suspicion the > privacy policy may have been breached... > *************************************************************** > Well Andre, Richard is not a honorable, ethical and honest guy. > You can use the argument you wish to explain these facts. But I will > not discuss it, in this group, with you. > My goal was to denounce spamcop here. Thank you. My disputes with > SpamCop and Cisco will continue but in other forums. But if you want > to discuss the tricks of Netcraft... I am all ears! > Marilson -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160901/4d4147d9/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]