Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Gunther Nitzsche]

Hi,

(long answer again..:-/ )

On 09/06/2016 08:21 AM, ox wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:08:05 +0100
> Richard Clayton  wrote:
>>> "The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
>>> rights of another resource"
>>>
>>> (1) Resource
>>> Any Internet Resource
>> that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much 
>>
> Okay, how can it be improved?
>
> All Internet resources?
>
That is still recursive. (as I wrote before).  And as I also wrote:

"The posted suggestion of "abuse" currently does not even fit for
the case where several (more than two) "resources" are involved."

You ignored this fact completely.

>> So..suggestion: abuse somehow is the violation of local laws and AUPs >> of 
>> the involved providers. (Someone might want to finalize that in
>> correct english) > > But not all Internet abuse is in violation of
laws, and, just because > it is not illegal, are you saying that because
it is not illegal, it > means that it is not abuse?

If it is legal, you can't sue your customer. It may be immoral, (is that
an english word?) but yes.. if the act in question is not stated
(somehow) in the (local) law or in the additional AUPs and contracts
then the person in question can always argue, it was no abuse.
If it is not forbidden, it is allowed.
If it is allowed it is hard to call it abuse.
Somewhere else it might be forbidden and considered abuse.
It just depends..
Sometimes things are so easy ;)

What is hard for anyone offering internet services is to
define an appropriate acceptable use policy which covers at least
most possible abusive behaviour cases..


>>> (4) Sanctioned
>>> An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative
>>> holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission
>>> is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation,
>>> event or action.   
>> excellent, the negation has disappeared

That doesn't say much. Example: Email sender provider supports sending
advertisements; because it might be just normal in that culture. So the
mail is sanctioned.
The receiver lives under different laws in a different culture where
unsolicited email
is unwanted and considered abuse. Now what.. The sending of the email is
not abuse,
but receiving the mail is?

>Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
>administrative holder of rights to a resource


assignor of a resource? What is that? (if you even say login-credentials
are a resource,
a smtp-server is a resource, cpu-cycles are, domain-names are.. )

Let's get back to RIPE: if RIPE NCC assigns ip-space to a provider, how
does
the assignor (RIPE) sees an infringement if someone sends (sanctioned,
see above) spam-emails from there?

I do not like the whole concept of these resources.

In the sentences below you now also have added the task to define "fair
use" ..

 I know that Andre will immediately answer this mail and he will pick only
some parts  and insists on his "resources"...
But I want to focus on the two statements:

* the restriction to (undefined) resources in an abuse-definition is not
helpful
* abuse is interpreted differently in different parts of this world;
therefore we
should stick with written papers.. contracts, laws, AUPs.

like: (internet) abuse is the violation of valid legal interests (laws,
contracts, AUPs)
to the detriment of a third party

..to be discussed:)

(Just found the word detriment..:)

best greetings,

Gunther

> Yeah, but now it does not cater for orphan resources
>
> Remember that; 
>
> If a resource is used with permission to abuse another resource = abuse
>
> So, the negation exists to allow the abuse to the resource (itself) by
> it's 'upstream'
>
> Which is why sanctioned - now works... (in the new order - after
> infringement...)
>
> (4) Infringe
> An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
> encroaches upon the fair use of a resource
>
> (5) Sanctioned
> Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
> administrative holder of rights to a resource
>
> Andre
>
>


NetCologne Systemadministration
-- 
NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH
Am Coloneum 9 ; 50829 Köln
Geschäftsführer:   
  Timo von Lepel,
  Mario Wilhelm  
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates:
  Dr. Andreas Cerbe
  HRB 25580, AG Köln

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:08:05 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> >rights of another resource"
> >
> >(1) Resource
> >Any Internet Resource
> 
> that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much 
> 
Okay, how can it be improved?

All Internet resources?

> >(4) Sanctioned
> >An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative
> >holder of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission
> >is granted by direct implication, which authorises that situation,
> >event or action.   
> 
> excellent, the negation has disappeared
> 
Yeah, but now it does not cater for orphan resources

Remember that; 

If a resource is used with permission to abuse another resource = abuse

So, the negation exists to allow the abuse to the resource (itself) by
it's 'upstream'

Which is why sanctioned - now works... (in the new order - after
infringement...)

(4) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

(5) Sanctioned
Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
administrative holder of rights to a resource

Andre

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:49:54 +0200
ox  wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200
> ox  wrote:
> > > you've missed my point
> > I have not.
> > > you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is,
> > > activity for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough
> > > (so far as it goes)
> > > > I do no such thing...
> > > you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> > > setting out a definition which has something to do with the
> > > complexity of what permission means.
> > no, you are wrong again...
> for sanity, lets skip to the part where the word "non" reverses the
> permissiveness

second reply to my own post :( 

I guess as this is core to the very list, and is complex, and I make
many mistakes, myself, this requires replying to my own posts when I am
wrong or say wrong things - as I am adding to confusion and not
contributing :(

Okay, Richard, I think I understand, you are saying that orphan
resources do not have an "assignor or administrative holder of rights to a 
resource"

(5) Sanctioned
Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
administrative holder of rights to a resource

--> What I am trying to say, long windedly, is that someone else
pointed this out to me, off list, on the previous version of "sanctioned"

Which then changed it to reflect that, and it now does cater for orphan
resources, as I said in the reply before: water flows downhill 


Richard, I really and honestly appreciate your help! 

If you still think I am missing something - Please help by improving
the "sanctioned" or explain to me with a practical example so that I
can understand please?

Andre


 
Internet Abuse 


Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy
undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical.  The Internet
consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to
also understanding the use and interaction between these resources.

Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols,
credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical
examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email
addresses.

This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying
the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define
any rights to resources but simply to define what technically
constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources.


==
Definition of Internet abuse 
==

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"


Terminology used in the above definition


(1) Resource
Any Internet Resource

(2) Use and Usage
Any direct or indirect action involving a resource

(3) Rights
The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative
holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or
reasonable 
expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned
resource

(4) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

(5) Sanctioned
Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
administrative holder of rights to a resource

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Richard Clayton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In message , ox  writes


>==
>Definition of Internet abuse 
>==
>
>"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
>of another resource"
>
>
>Terminology used in the above definition
>
>
>(1) Resource
>Any Internet Resource

that's a recursive definition -- which doesn't assist much 

>(4) Sanctioned
>An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder
>of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted
>by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or
>action.   

excellent, the negation has disappeared

- -- 
richard   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBV85dRTu8z1Kouez7EQIoUQCg9cCnxxLn3wXaSW8kMwSsFt21/AUAn1ry
iMsqK26QCzGXAPGFJTffH5Wc
=tqgd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:37:32 +0200
ox  wrote:
> > you've missed my point
> I have not.
> > you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity
> > for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as
> > it goes)
> > > I do no such thing...
> > you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> > setting out a definition which has something to do with the
> > complexity of what permission means.
> no, you are wrong again...
> 
for sanity, lets skip to the part where the word "non" reverses the
permissiveness

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
rights of another resource"

So: You are right, sanctioned is very important - but - you are wrong
about it being complex, it is not. 

It has two conditions - Sanctioned - OR non sanctioned

Sanctioned itself, is the infringement (action)  - by adding the
negative or the second condition to the definition, it means that 
it is non permissive action exercised by the "assignor or
administrative holder of rights"

So, it caters full well for 'orphans & children' and legacy
resources... as water flows downhill - with regards to Internet
resources, and luckily for us, not also uphill...

So, the administrative holder of any rights to a resource can change
(as in I can sell my domain name to you) and then me removing your
email address does not constitute 'abuse' 

I think that the simplicity of the definition is catching many people
of guard?


Andre 



Internet Abuse 


Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy
undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical.  The Internet
consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to
also understanding the use and interaction between these resources.

Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols,
credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical
examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email
addresses.

This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying
the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define
any rights to resources but simply to define what technically
constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources.


==
Definition of Internet abuse 
==

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"


Terminology used in the above definition


(1) Resource
Any Internet Resource

(2) Use and Usage
Any direct or indirect action involving a resource

(3) Rights
The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative
holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or
reasonable 
expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned
resource

(4) Sanctioned
An action, event or situation originating from the authoritative holder
of rights to a resource that gives permission, or permission is granted
by direct implication, which authorises that situation, event or
action.   

(5) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:41:56 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> In message , ox  writes
> >Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
> >correct about the abuse from legacy resources.
> no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(
> >However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
> >resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
> >So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy
> >resources...
> >Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
> >reflect 
> 
> you've missed my point
> 
I have not.

> you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity
> for which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it
> goes)
> 
I do no such thing...

> you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
> setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity
> of what permission means.
> 
no, you are wrong again...

Let me help you with it?

Abuse core definition: - Read it :: s l o w l y 

-
use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
-

Then, read my previous reply, again?


Richard,

Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
correct about the abuse from legacy resources.

However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource

So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...

Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the
rich...@example.com resource - by deleting richard@  (of course this
extends to RIR and other resources as well)

In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is
denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of
rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse'
would in fact be sanctioned.

So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way
around and is correct?

Thank you so much for contributing and helping

Andre


On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> >==
> >Definition of Internet abuse 
> >==
> >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> >rights of another resource"
> >
> >Terminology used in the above definition
> >
> >(5) Sanctioned
> >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
> >administrative holder of rights to a resource  
> that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to
> say
> (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing
> isolation, but you might as well make it coherent)
> BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to
> abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is
> made that there can be no administration of them ...
>   





> - -- 
> richard   Richard
> Clayton
> 
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin
> Franklin 11 Nov 1755
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
> 
> iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
> bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
> =9ogY
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Richard Clayton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In message , ox  writes

>Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
>correct about the abuse from legacy resources.

no -- I was concerned about abuse OF legacy resources :(

>However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
>resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource
>
>So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...
>
>Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
>reflect 

you've missed my point

you define abuse as "non sanctioned" activity...  that is, activity for
which permission has not been granted.  Fair enough (so far as it goes)

you then define "sanctioned" as being infringement :-( rather than
setting out a definition which has something to do with the complexity
of what permission means.

- -- 
richard   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBV84s9Du8z1Kouez7EQI4KACgvPCyK4SimvypTL/bmW79vlB5MPMAnRjx
bzv3dryAeKzfhnlmOdXK1UL2
=9ogY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

Richard,

Dealing with your first point, I do agree and you are imho, quite
correct about the abuse from legacy resources.

However, the current definition of Internet abuse is: --> use of a
resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource

So, this caters exactly for ALL resources, including legacy resources...

Thank you for your feedback about, sanctioned, but it exists only to
reflect that when I, the owner of domain example.com "abuses" the
rich...@example.com resource - by deleting richard@  (of course this
extends to RIR and other resources as well)

In the case of 'sanctioned' as above, when a legacy resource user is
denied the use of that resource by new 'administrative holder' of
rights to that resource, that would then not be 'abuse' as such 'abuse'
would in fact be sanctioned.

So, if you read it like that, do you agree that it is the right way around and 
is correct?

Thank you so much for contributing and helping

Andre


On Sun, 4 Sep 2016 17:26:48 +0100
Richard Clayton  wrote:
> >==
> >Definition of Internet abuse 
> >==
> >"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage
> >rights of another resource"
> >
> >Terminology used in the above definition
> >
> >(5) Sanctioned
> >Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
> >administrative holder of rights to a resource
> that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to
> say
> (not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing
> isolation, but you might as well make it coherent)
> BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to
> abuse of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is
> made that there can be no administration of them ...
> 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Richard Clayton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

In message , ox  writes

>==
>Definition of Internet abuse 
>==
>
>"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
>of another resource"
>
>
>Terminology used in the above definition
>

>(5) Sanctioned
>Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
>administrative holder of rights to a resource

that definition of "sanctioned" is backwards from what you intend to say

(not that I think it's a useful thing to say in such continuing
isolation, but you might as well make it coherent)

BTW: a considerable chunk of the problem, in practice, relates to abuse
of "legacy" resources. The assignor is dead and the argument is made
that there can be no administration of them ...

- -- 
richard   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBV8xLSDu8z1Kouez7EQLpHgCeOuXOQ5JwXj2SnU1uXQsLnXMP0PQAoM38
HdckXLXGBM/+ckz6oEWgExNW
=Lkz3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[ox]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:38:39 -0300
"Marilson"  wrote:
> Herr Volker, me and Andre are only showing one type of abuse. I think
> you agree that we are succeeding. Marilson
> 

Which is why there is a desperate need to define what exactly is
Internet Abuse, in terms of this WG.

Abuse happens all the time, in many forms and "we all know it when we
see it" 

As, people abuse shoes, their cars, each other. Abuse is too a wide
ranging term and many ISP have varying Abuse policies all based
loosely on their own corporate understanding of what constitutes "abuse"

I will give one perfect and practical example: TWITTER.com - does not
consider their own behavior of sending multiple unsolicited emails to
incorrect or wrong email addresses, as Internet abuse.

So, after my complaining in public, maybe Twitter may (or may not)
change their behavior, but that is one HUGE example and the examples
are millions.

Is it "Internet Abuse" when me and Marilson may or may not abuse each
other in email communications?

Yes, it is abuse - No, it is not Internet Abuse. - Much confusion about
what is Internet abuse and what it is not. So, again, instead of not
contributing, please contribute to this discussion and let us define
Internet Abuse... 

This is what there is thus far, please ADD, Discuss, Change, Improve:

 

Internet Abuse 


Understanding what constitutes Internet Abuse is not an easy
undertaking as the topic is sometimes very technical.  The Internet
consists of resources and the understanding of Internet abuse relates to
also understanding the use and interaction between these resources.

Examples of Internet resources include also processes, protocols,
credentials as well as other types of resources. More practical
examples could be Internet Protocol numbers, Domain names or even Email
addresses.

This technical definition of Internet abuse does not include identifying
the authority for any specific resource as it is not intended to define
any rights to resources but simply to define what technically
constitutes Internet abuse as it relates to all Internet resources.


==
Definition of Internet abuse 
==

"The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights
of another resource"


Terminology used in the above definition


(1) Resource
Any Internet Resource

(2) Use and Usage
Any direct or indirect action involving a resource

(3) Rights
The correct assignment or allocation of a resource by the authoritative
holder of such a resource which results in the entitlement or
reasonable 
expectation to use, or ability to use, such an allocated or assigned
resource

(4) Infringe
An action, event or situation which limits, reduces, undermines or
encroaches upon the fair use of a resource

(5) Sanctioned
Infringement upon the use of a resource by the assignor or
administrative holder of rights to a resource

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

[Marilson]

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-requ...@ripe.net 
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:31 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 59, Issue 7

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg@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-requ...@ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-ow...@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 
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Message-ID: <45504d89-5b20-515f-2f74-be65346fe...@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 
>> 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 supp...@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