Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 20:54:40 -0700 "Fi Shing" wrote: > > The twitter example is not advertising a product or service. It is > conveying information about a product/service that the person has > already hired. If twitter sends unsolicited emails to someone when > they have not requested that service, or have indicated they no > longer want the service, then it is spam. > Does not matter if a spammer is advertising a product or a service or stalking/harassing or sending 5000 emails in error. So, what I am saying is the 'intent' of the sender is not relevant at all. What is relevant is that the recipient is receiving emails that they did not as for, does not want and is causing them costs - as recipients generally pay for the bandwidth to receive email. The point of the Twitter example is : Cyber criminal creates fake Twitter account using random victim email address. Random victim now starts receiving copious amounts of spam from Twitter. Do you agree? - and if not can you please explain with your own example? Practically, at the moment and afaik, for the past few months, Twitter is actually sending an initial email verification email...but, they never used to before. And, in the rest of my post below, everything else is fine? Thanks :) Andre > Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions From: "ac" > Date: 4/27/19 4:22 am > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > > Hi, > > From a recent rant in the WG, something of interest was posted; > > > opinions on the proper definition of spam. Mr. Andre's preferred > > definition appears to allow for "one time" invitations to be > > blasted to everyone in the universe. Nonetheless, in Mr. Andre's > > considered opinion, "Email Spam is not the same as Spam Abuse" and > > a "... one > > In my opinion, the sending of a confirmation email, from say Twitter, > to confirm that the actual email address does indeed exist and that > their further communications will be solicited - as well as including > links to remove/stop further communications: > > Would be spam (it is still an unsolicited email) - but that single > confirmation email is not abuse in itself. > > Even though Twitter may send 1000's of these to 1000's of different > email addresses... > > I do not think that there is anyone, that works with actual spam > abuse, in this WG that disagrees completely with my opinion above. > > Also, I wanted to add another useful resource link for anyone that is > still learning about email abuse: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409 > > What is frequently missed is that BULK EMAIL itself, is not the > issue, but that the keyword is "unsolicited" - For example if you > were to relay 1000 Invoices or 1000 status notifications or 1000 > opted in mailing list recipients, this would/should not be considered > spam or abuse. > > Then, of course, imnsho UBE itself is outdated as the spammers use > 'drip' systems by spinning out 1's of emails from 1's of ip's > Which various RBL cater for by speedily listing and de-listing > resources and then there are all the shiny new tech things, which > probably needs a new thread: > > Automated comment spam or AI based web form spam is a growing issue > and is something that merits discussion and a watchful eye... > > Andre
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions
The twitter example is not advertising a product or service. It is conveying information about a product/service that the person has already hired. If twitter sends unsolicited emails to someone when they have not requested that service, or have indicated they no longer want the service, then it is spam. - Original Message - Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions From: "ac" Date: 4/27/19 4:22 am To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Hi, From a recent rant in the WG, something of interest was posted; > opinions on the proper definition of spam. Mr. Andre's preferred > definition appears to allow for "one time" invitations to be blasted > to everyone in the universe. Nonetheless, in Mr. Andre's considered > opinion, "Email Spam is not the same as Spam Abuse" and a "... one In my opinion, the sending of a confirmation email, from say Twitter, to confirm that the actual email address does indeed exist and that their further communications will be solicited - as well as including links to remove/stop further communications: Would be spam (it is still an unsolicited email) - but that single confirmation email is not abuse in itself. Even though Twitter may send 1000's of these to 1000's of different email addresses... I do not think that there is anyone, that works with actual spam abuse, in this WG that disagrees completely with my opinion above. Also, I wanted to add another useful resource link for anyone that is still learning about email abuse: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409 What is frequently missed is that BULK EMAIL itself, is not the issue, but that the keyword is "unsolicited" - For example if you were to relay 1000 Invoices or 1000 status notifications or 1000 opted in mailing list recipients, this would/should not be considered spam or abuse. Then, of course, imnsho UBE itself is outdated as the spammers use 'drip' systems by spinning out 1's of emails from 1's of ip's Which various RBL cater for by speedily listing and de-listing resources and then there are all the shiny new tech things, which probably needs a new thread: Automated comment spam or AI based web form spam is a growing issue and is something that merits discussion and a watchful eye... Andre
[anti-abuse-wg] Current List Behaviour/Discussion
Folks, We thought we had made ourselves very clear. Apparently not. The current conversation is not useful to the list. Please stop it now. Andre stays on the list. Ronald stays on the list. Both of you are welcome to unsubscribe. But further mails on this topic will cause the Co-Chairs to ask the NCC to put the senders into moderation. Talk about something else, or nothing at all. Enjoy your weekends. Thank you. Brian Co-Chair, AA-WG Brian Nisbet, Service Operations Manager, HEAnet
[anti-abuse-wg] Email Spam & Spam Abuse Definitions
Hi, From a recent rant in the WG, something of interest was posted; > opinions on the proper definition of spam. Mr. Andre's preferred > definition appears to allow for "one time" invitations to be blasted > to everyone in the universe. Nonetheless, in Mr. Andre's considered > opinion, "Email Spam is not the same as Spam Abuse" and a "... one In my opinion, the sending of a confirmation email, from say Twitter, to confirm that the actual email address does indeed exist and that their further communications will be solicited - as well as including links to remove/stop further communications: Would be spam (it is still an unsolicited email) - but that single confirmation email is not abuse in itself. Even though Twitter may send 1000's of these to 1000's of different email addresses... I do not think that there is anyone, that works with actual spam abuse, in this WG that disagrees completely with my opinion above. Also, I wanted to add another useful resource link for anyone that is still learning about email abuse: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-409 What is frequently missed is that BULK EMAIL itself, is not the issue, but that the keyword is "unsolicited" - For example if you were to relay 1000 Invoices or 1000 status notifications or 1000 opted in mailing list recipients, this would/should not be considered spam or abuse. Then, of course, imnsho UBE itself is outdated as the spammers use 'drip' systems by spinning out 1's of emails from 1's of ip's Which various RBL cater for by speedily listing and de-listing resources and then there are all the shiny new tech things, which probably needs a new thread: Automated comment spam or AI based web form spam is a growing issue and is something that merits discussion and a watchful eye... Andre
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 09:57:48 +0200 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 07:56:16AM +0200, ac wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:41:50 -0700 > > Randy Bush wrote: > > > plonk > > so, we are now degraded to single slang derogatory terms... as you > > are reply to me and the list, I am assuming that I am the > > 'plonker' > "plonk" is the sound an e-mail address makes when it's landing on > a blacklist. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet) > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster oh, thank you for that, since many words have many meanings and I am over fidonet and bbs etc I guess I should use bing.com or google.com to search random one word postings... and, if people think that because they have done cool things in the past and they are nine years, three months and seven days older than me, and they are so important and I am such an non important low life that they can "plonk" and then say that in public, it reflects clearly whom they are, what they think and how they react. you, Gert, on the other hand, bothers to educate me on the meaning of "plonk" - so thank you for that :) Andre
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] AS24940 Hetzner -- non-role contact wanted
Hi, On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 07:56:16AM +0200, ac wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 22:41:50 -0700 > Randy Bush wrote: > > > plonk > > so, we are now degraded to single slang derogatory terms... as you are > reply to me and the list, I am assuming that I am the 'plonker' "plonk" is the sound an e-mail address makes when it's landing on a blacklist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
