[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Can’t Last Long In Bed? (3 quick ways to FIX it)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marilson
marilson.mapa at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 17:38:39 CEST 2016
Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think you agree that we are succeeding. Marilson From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final (Volker Greimann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:31:36 +0200 From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final Message-ID: <45504d89-5b20-515f-2f74-be65346fe8d7 at key-systems.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" This entire exchange reminds me of this scene: https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE?t=41 "This is abuse" Best, Volker Am 02.09.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Hal ponton: > 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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/d5ef1c69/attachment.html> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7 ******************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160902/b0a42f9c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Can’t Last Long In Bed? (3 quick ways to FIX it)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]