[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hal ponton
hal at buzcom.net
Fri Sep 2 16:00:07 CEST 2016
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/20160902/97cfc74a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Internet Abuse * pre-final
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]