On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:03:04 +0530
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@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" <an...@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 ab...@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@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.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > On 04/10/16, 7:19 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox"
>     > <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net on behalf of an...@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
>     > 
>     > 
>     
>     
> 
> 


Reply via email to