Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
From: bcurnow <bcurnow () sonnet com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 14:02:22 -47900


For my two cents:

I also agree with John.  I think the current system where 'civic-saviors'
protest spams to the spammers' provider works fairly well.  It works as a
pressure to resist spamming.  The only thing I don't like about it are the
militant-son-of-spams.  If the current unstructured system stays, I think
there should be a simple addition to govern son-of-spammers to prevent the
kind of frontier justice used on those lawyers.  I myself will usually
forward the complaint on to the spammers.  After 2 complaints I add that
they need to stop the activity, but sometimes it's simply a lag-time or
long time-to-live on a spam that keeps complaints coming in long
afterward.  ... 

---------------- Brian  Curnow --------------

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Tim Bass wrote:


John Curran and I are in total agreement on John's premise that any
Post NSF AUP is either a) unenforceable or b) subject to abuse. I suggest
that for the moment, that we agree with John that any AUP is both:

a)    Unenforceable;
b)    Subject to abuse; and
c)    Virtually impossible to authenticate.

Giving the above, the question still remains and the original motion is still
valid for this reason.

If we define a Post NSF AUP, then at least everyone who uses the Internet
will have had the opportunity to have read and understood what the current
Internet AUP describes.

It is possible that having a clearly defined AUP will not stop spam and
other unacceptable uses of the net, and clearly an AUP is not enforceable
( and for IP security reasons should not be enforced without absolute
authentication as John correctly points out).

On the other hand, having a clearly defined AUP may discourage potential
spammers and child pornographers, etc.  (not that we consider spammers
and child pornography peddlers in the same vein..).  Also, having a 
clearly defined Internet AUP will send a signal to the news media and
government officials that the providers of Internet services are 
capable of formulating policy in an area that, without self-regulation,
has a strong potential to continue degenerating.

Is a self-formulated Post NSF AUP, without enforcement, still a good idea?

The answer, I suggest, is not obvious, but a debate on the subject 
does have considerable merit, given the events of the past week or so.


Tim




-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass                           | #include<campfire.h>                | 
| Principal Network Systems Engineer |       for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){  |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd.          |           take_one_down();          |
|                                    |           pass_it_around();         |
| http://www.silkroad.com/           |       }                             |
|                                    |  back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]