Hi, I’m out of office till 22 August. Any RIPE Labs related queries can be sent to l...@ripe.net and one of my colleagues will get back to you.
Cheers, Alun On 14 Aug 2022, at 15:47, Hans-Martin Mosner via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > Jeroen, > ist's hard to distinguish between straight statements and serious questions > on one hand and sarcasm, rhetorical questions and strawman arguments on the > other hand in written communication, especially when there sometimes seems to > be a "mode switch". I'm trying to respond seriously and to be explicit about > how I understood your statements. > > Am 14.08.22 um 10:26 schrieb jer...@hackersbescherming.nl: > My bad! I assumed that when u create or follow a training course that u want > to learn or teach a way that ALWAYS works. > > I'm unsure whether you meant that seriously or sarcastically. > > Of course the assumption is wrong. Training is a way of improving your > ability to do something, not of learning something that always works. A > football team will train to learn to play better and win more games, not to > learn a away that will let them win ALWAYS. Similarly, an abuse desk team > will train to learn ways of detecting abuse earlier, to distinguish between > true and false abuse accusations, to use tools and automation to focus their > human attention on the tricky problems instead of doing rote work, etc. None > of that will guarantee that there will be no abuse from their network, but it > will likely reduce the amount by catching it quicker and making it > unattractive for spammers. Of course, that's the theory, but my experience > from the other side of the fence is that quick and swift action is the > primary thing that reduces the amount of spam, and it should work equally > well and on a larger volume on the provider side. > > > With my assumption of the below. > To solve the abuse problem u either need a system that can hold the abuser > responsible or and that would be even better u need a system where nobody > would grow an interest to even try to abuse > > Did you forget a period here? As such, this sentence sort of makes sense, > although I would not strive to "solve" the abuse problem but to reduce the > volume and impact on recipients. Holding abusers responsible may be one way > (although it would be necessary to define what that means). > > A system where nobody would grow an interest to even try abuse is impossible, > we know from the non-effectiveness of capital punishment against murder etc. > that there is no effective deterrant that keeps people from wanting to do and > actually doing horrible things. The only "effective" way would be to lock up > everybody as a safety measure. That's like blocking access to port 25, surely > it keeps out the spam, but would have some undesirable side effects. > > So, this is not what I want. > > and when u start thinking into > this direction all the other "BIG" problems in the world will become easy to > solve. (Yes u read this right they are easy to solve, we currently just use > the wrong systems (all over the world) to guide and lead us) > Is this a strawman argument of the form "we should not try to solve problem X > because we can't solve problem Y and that's even bigger"? That's faulty > logic, I assume written tongue-in-cheek. > > When u would have a good system then a large portion or maybe even all of > the current training material would be irrelevant since it is based on the > current system that doesn't provide a solution for the problem. > > That's an assumption about the training material (which I haven't seen and > know nothing about) and the current system that I don't share. It seems to > imply that there is no way of reducing the amount of spam in the current > system, which is IMO not true. > > I do think that the current system is lacking in some areas but is overall > usable, and that it is possible to reduce abuse within the framework of the > current system. Usable training material would teach what can be done at one > point (one provider) to achive this without requiring undue cooperation from > other players or changing the system. That is, actually doable changes to > one's operation to reduce the amount of abuse. > > > What u are saying is that when I create a training that teaches 1+1=11 and > someone out there wants to learn this that this would be a usefull training > .... (maybe for someone to do on his own but not for a global/regional > solution). > Looks like a strawman argument again. I'm not proposing that training should > teach nonsense and that someone out there could want to learn nonsense, so > this would be useful training. What I was saying is that a training course > (which I presumed teaches something actually useful in reducing the spam > load) can only be useful for organizations that want to get closer to that > goal. If an organization does not share that goal (or has different main > goals), they most likely would not want or need the training. > > It doesn't matter to which group u belong to, in the end we all belong to > the same group called Humans.... > We need a fair worldwide system where power is removed from all > individuals!!!! (Since power allways creates a form of abuse) > > Looks like a hyperbole/strawman argument again: "If we can't solve the > worldwide power abuse issues, we should not even try to fight local abuse". > Faulty logic. > > Kind regards, > > Jeroen > Cheers, > Hans-Martin > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
