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 > > > > > > > >
