October 1995 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
by postel＠ISI.EDU 18 Oct '95

18 Oct '95

Hmm. I really dislike the email spam, and would like to find a technical means to stop it. I am not so sure we would be happy with the results of trying make it illegal, though. But just what is the legal definition of spam ? If it looks like spam, smells like spam, tastes like spam, then it must be spam! Or is it like obsenity, the definition of which even the Supreme Court seems to have trouble pinning down? I don't think we really want any more laws that criminalize ill defined acts. --jon.

12 11

Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
by Robert Raisch, The Internet Company 18 Oct '95

18 Oct '95

On 15 Oct 95 at 15:24, George Herbert wrote: > Just as a warning, some of us on the recieving end of more than our fair > share of net abuse (the collected Usenet moderators) are starting to get > more than a little short fuzed about this. I would like to propose that we seek legislative relief from this ever-increasing problem. I have spoken with counsel and now understand what is required to support the enactment of federal legislation to prohibit the misuse of electronic mail and Usenet news by unprincipled "spammers." There is already law which prohibits marketing via facsimile and cellular telephone. My position is that e-mail and Usenet news are similar vehicles in the sense that there is a measurable cost on the receiver's end. I believe that this has the potential of being a high-visibility legal issue, and one that would be a "vote getter" as it speaks directly to an educated, active voting constituency. I plan on pursuing this with Sen. Edward Markey's office, as he is my local legislative representative and chairs the House Telecommunications Committee which is responsible for the facsimile law, as I understand it. To do this effectively, such an effort would require certain financial resources to support things like a state by state search for existing legislative and the creation of new draft legislation. I'll be providing information about this at our booth at Internet World at the end of the month and would like to see if there is enough support for this project to sponsor it at the grassroots. Please respond to me directly with your thoughts. </rr> Robert Raisch, Chief Scientist The Internet Company 96 Sherman Street Cambridge, MA 021040 617-547-3600 617-547-3300 FAX -- The Internet Company - info(a)internet.com We Bring Only Value to the Global Internet

5 4

SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
by Tim Bass 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

Ladies and Gentlemen: I think it is fair to say the motion on the table calling for a post NSF AUP is not ready to be withdrawn nor tabled and that there is sufficient support to call for a group to work together to create a rough draft. It will be very challenging to see a diverse and informed crowd such as the cross-section of com-priv and nanog attempt to reach an 80 to 90 percent concensus on what constitutes "Acceptable Usage" of the Internet. Maybe we could begin by trying to faq an "Acceptable Usage of the Internet" FAQ. I volunteer to try to keep the FAQ on track and make the latest draft available on our server. The $1,000,000 question is who is qualified and interested and bold enough to take a first cut at a draft. Second, where should the discussion take place? com-priv, nanog, another group, or a new group? There is a blank page called http://www.silkroad.com/aup/aup.html eagerly awaiting a bold first draft by an Internet Oracle. Internet Oracle, please put your draft forward :-) The alternative is to table the motion and forget about the issue. I believe that a non-binding AUP is a necessary 'first step' that is causal to all other events congruent to the 'spam and son-of-spam' issue. It has been demonstrated that enough people on nanog and com-priv are interested in trying to come to consensus on a draft AUP. What do you say? Shall we table the motion or move forward? 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 */ | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

5 5

Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion...
by len＠WR.BBNPLANET.COM 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

Can this discussion be re-directed back to com-priv where (IMHO) it belongs? Len On Oct 17, 1:14pm, Carl Payne wrote: > Subject: Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion.. > >Smoked Pork And Ham > > I thought it was Scientifically Processed Animal Matter > > More appropriately, > > Someone Poor At Marketing > Stupid Posts Aimed Maliciously > > ...something like that. :-) > > Carl >-- End of excerpt from Carl Payne -- BBN PLANET len(a)bbnplanet.com http://www.bbnplanet.com

1 0

Re: What is SPAM? - was Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion...
by cat＠system9.unisys.com 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

spam: Any posting which contains an advertisement of a product. >posting: Any peice of electronic material found either in a UseNet NewsGroup, > public mailing list (listserv), or a private mailing list. > >I really don't see what the big deal is in all this. > >-- >Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc. >(520)623-9663 Systems Consultant -- Unix, LANs, WANs, Cisco >dsiegel(a)rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, >http://www.rtd.com/ for an ISP." This email has an advertisement in it - it's for RTD Systems & Networking. Should we call this spam??? Perhaps a more appropriate definition would be: spam: A posting to multiple newsgroup/mailing lists/? which contains as its greater part an advertisement of a product and/or is with regards to a topic of no relevance to the forums in which it has been posted. Spamming is not entirely commercial - I can't agree that the various obscene postings/mailings which appear in the same manner as spams like the magazine spam are commercial (aimed at titilating the poster, perhaps, but not at creating a profit for the poster). Cat

2 1

Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
by patrick＠Verity.COM 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

First my apologies to those who like me are on both com-priv and nanog. I'll edit out the individuals involved so that they'll only get one copy. I'm working at home on a MUA, (why not, everyone else has done one;), and I'll have to remember to add in a feature like that in a good usenet reader that will only present an article to me once even when coming from different sources. Hm...that way I'd only personally notice a spam on on of the mailing lists I'm on:) I suppose a message digest of the body of the article would suffice, if the digest is the same, then the article's the same. It won't catch everything, but it will be better than now. PGP signed articles will be a breeze to catch. Anyway... There's a danger here that what was a comparatively productive discussion will falter now since no one wants to seem like they are in the same boat as Sean Doran and his parliamentary procedure bandwagon. (Boy is that weird mixed metaphors or what? <grin> ;) Let's just ignore the silliness and go on with our discussion. Patrick _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Verity's (except by coincidence;). \ | (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Verity Inc. \\ Have | | patrick(a)verity.com 1550 Plymouth Street \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (415)960-7600 Mountain View \\/ Will | | FAX : (415)960-7750 California 94303 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________________________________________\)__________/

1 0

Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
by cat＠system9.unisys.com 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

> You seem to be just a tad deluded as to the relative > importance of a few white males. Perhaps we should > figure out how to get a real cross-section of the > Internet populace first, then worry about global > policy. Or better yet, focus on the policy for > silkroad.com and ensure that others that you peer > directly with understand your policy. > Think globally, Act locally. Get your own house > in order first. >--bill ...and you seem to be making some rather interesting assumptions about the readership of this list. There are definately far more men than women involved in technical areas (and computer especially). This doesn't immediately suggest to me that a AUP created/suggested by members of this list will be written entirely by (and entirely for) white male citizens of the United States. I'm certainly neither. The RFC process has being going for a *long* time (relatively speaking). Perhaps you're going to suggest that we abandon that means of putting forward technical and general suggestions about the Internet until an appropriate committee can be formed. (made up of an appropriate mixture of visible minorities, women and handicapped, of course) I appreciate your desire to ensure that everyone has a voice in the process. Democracy/socialism can be a wonderful thing. How do you propose to determine what a "real" cross-section of the Internet is??? Are we going to try and count up everyone on the Internet - and how are we going to define just who is on the Internet? Will this be restricted to people who make regular contributions to Internet culture (anyone for net.kook of the year?)? Are you (what are your qualifications by the way) going to determine who a 'real cross-section' of the Internet is? You're obviously biased about this as is... com-priv may be a US-centric mailing list, but it has more claim to a global nature than the state legislature does... Cat Okita

1 0

Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
by rboivie＠VNET.IBM.COM 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

In discussing spamming problems "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)merit.edu> wrote: > I personally think slightly smarter exploders might go a long way. For > example: > ... > 2) an exploder that "suspends" messages with more than, say 6 lists > and newsgroups, and notifies the sender. If the sender is not a real > address, it automatically is purged. But wouldn't a spammer just defeat this measure by using a shell script, say. Instead of sending one message to n lists, a script could easily send n messages each addressed to a single list. Rick Boivie rboivie(a)vnet.ibm.com

2 1

Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
by Walter O. Haas 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

My first reaction to this thread was "Yeah! Let's outlaw spam!". But then it occurred to me that the Internet already gives me more control over this stuff than I have now with junk mail and phone calls. Unless the spam situation gets worse (and the only spam I've gotten in a month or more was Nazi propaganda from a forged address) I'm inclined to think legislation would create more problems than it solves. -- Walt

1 0

Re: SECOND CALL FOR AUP MOTION
by Sean Doran 17 Oct '95

17 Oct '95

>Shall we table the motion ... Who's "we"? Sean.

2 1