[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final

Hi All,

I think this is getting a little abusive here, can the tone be brought 
down a little to something a little more acceptable please?

Regards,

Hal Ponton
Senior Network Engineer

Buzcom / FibreWiFi

> Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com>
> 2 September 2016 at 14:46
> On Sep 01, 2016 07:12 Andre Coetzee wrote:
> > It is very clear what and who what you are Marilson.
> > completely overestimate your own technical skills and abilities.
> >
> technically ignorant
> > extremely belligerent
> > how ignorant you are
> >
> approach a real Internet engineer (to learn) how the Internet works
> > You obviously have a lot to learn
> > reading what I am typing and improving yourself (mamma mia, without 
> smiley ;) this phrase sound too bad)
> Hmm...well, I won't stoop so low. And am I the extremely belligerent?!?
> On my last message I wrote:
> >>
> First I want to thank you for having changed your attitude and not 
> have mocked.
> Your comments were full of arrogance and veiled insults and now the 
> insults are clear and direct. What happened? No one can call you a 
> hypocrite, right?
> You took sentences of my message and evaluated out of context. Another 
> sight of you – dishonesty.
> I will repeat because you were dishonest:
> 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. I needed to help them so I do 
> not waste time with my complaints. To solve this I appealed to Cisco. 
> Cisco or spamcop did nothing. I waited 30 days and repeat the message 
> (for Cisco) appending the phrase: Thanks for nothing. Arrogants of shit!
> On the same day spamcop replied and thanked stating that the reporting 
> address was corrected.
> Herr Volker, die Anbieter geben Sie mir nur Aufmerksamkeit, wenn 
> beleidigt. ;)
> Tell me Andre, if a user of your server inform you that you are using 
> a wrong source address will you remain quiet? If he insists will you 
> call him of ignorant and suggest to approach a real Internet engineer 
> to learn how the Internet works?
> To spamcop on
> Aug 17, 2016:
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
> > Clearly the problem here is that you, Marilson, completely overestimate
> > your own technical skills and abilities.
> Sorry to disappoint you, Andre, what you're saying is absurd. Why I 
> would overestimating something so trivial? I do not want to belittle 
> the value of your company but any idiot locates the source of spam or 
> scam. Do you think necessary to have technical skills and abilities 
> for this?
> What I put for your evaluation is the time, the hours lost during a 
> year using spamcop. And that is unacceptable. They are yes, liar, 
> idiot, rascal and arrogants of shit.
> Man, I know why you are so angry. In the true, to get the information 
> that spamcop provides, it is enough being able to read and know a 
> little bit English language. Stress the necessity for a major 
> technological knowledge will value your company. But if you will drink 
> from the same source of spamcop and act as they act, then your company 
> will be unreliable because it will present wrong scam source address. 
> At least 5%, Dr Engineer
> in Expertise Area of Information Technology.
> Good luck
> Marilson
> *******************************************************************
> *From:* Marilson <mailto:marilson.mapa at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:20 PM
> *To:* andre at ox.co.za <mailto:andre at ox.co.za>
> *Cc:* anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
> 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

-- 
--
Regards,

Hal Ponton
Senior Network Engineer

Buzcom / FibreWiFi


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/97cfc74a/attachment.html>