Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
I support the notion of a non-binding AUP, on the grounds that it wouldn't be _that_ much work to do, but would give us (Internet denizens) something to point to when our respective governments give us the "clean up your act before we do it for you" number again. I don't expect such a non-binding AUP to have any short-term or dramatic effect on end-user behaviour, however. Thus, I also support the idea of PGP/listserv and PGP/news-server integration. At present, I can allow or disallow posting on our news servers by IP address or range, and by FQDN or domain name. I think it might be useful to allow PGP-authenticated validated users to post from any location or host. The creation of a user-list based permissions scheme would also clear the way for automatic invalidation of individual users who post to too many newsgroups within too short a period of time, a la deactivating user accounts after too many successive failed logins. I disagree with the proposition that this would place too great a burden on servers... authentication need be done only at the time the posting is introduced into the Usenet system or onto the listserv... If someone wants to go to the trouble of spoofing a whole listserv, perhaps that should be recognized as a whole we don't feel like dealing with in an initial implementation... News servers obviously support a limited number of inter-server connections, which could be easily validated themselves, so they're a more easily closed system. -Bill Woodcock ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Bill Woodcock wrote:
I don't expect such a non-binding AUP to have any short-term or dramatic effect on end-user behaviour, however.
The AUP won't have much effect, but the after-effects will. Once the AUP is announced we will get press coverage about it, any new Internet books and articles will point out the rules of conduct on the Internet and mention that breaking the rules could get you kicked out. All this will make people aware that there ARE rules and that spam is not liked. Publicity, publicity and more publicity. Besides, I believe ISOC has been working on a code of conduct for almost a year. I recall reading about it last fall somewhere at http://www.isoc.org Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
The AUP won't have much effect, but the after-effects will. Once the AUP is announced we will get press coverage about it, any new Internet books and articles will point out the rules of conduct on the Internet and mention that breaking the rules could get you kicked out. All this will make people aware that there ARE rules and that spam is not liked. Publicity, publicity and more publicity.
I've seen near zero coverage of RFC 1746, which covers AUP's on the Internet.
Besides, I believe ISOC has been working on a code of conduct for almost a year. I recall reading about it last fall somewhere at http://www.isoc.org
Does it cover the issues listed in RFC 1746? Is anyone at ISOC paying any attention?
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
--bill
bmanning@ISI.EDU writes:
The AUP won't have much effect, but the after-effects will. Once the AUP is announced we will get press coverage about it, any new Internet books and articles will point out the rules of conduct on the Internet and mention that breaking the rules could get you kicked out. All this will make people aware that there ARE rules and that spam is not liked. Publicity, publicity and more publicity.
I've seen near zero coverage of RFC 1746, which covers AUP's on the Internet.
I think that's because it defines areas an AUP should cover rather than defining any particular behavior as appropriate or not. It's just not controversial enough. Now if you publish something that the media can interpret as "Internet bans advertising!!!!" then you'll see coverage. :-) However, I don't believe publicizing an AUP will stop the kinds of spam I've seen most recently. A well known AUP will stop the guy who runs Amway out of his basement when he's not at his day job. Even if he doesn't want to be a good citizen anyway, the threat of losing his account will be a real threat. It will also stop established companies that have a public image to worry about. But it won't stop people like Canter & Siegel. A lot of the spams I've seen lately don't even want you to respond via the Internet. Why should they care if they lose their account? They'll just get another one somewhere. It's just not enough of a threat, yet it's probably the worst punishment an ISP can inflict. I do think an AUP is a good idea anyway, because of the groups that will be swayed by it and the things other than spam that could be addressed. And I'm rather afraid that with legislation, the cure would be worse than the disease. Cathy -- Catherine Foulston cathyf@rice.edu Rice University Network Management
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Catherine Anne Foulston -
Michael Dillon -
woody＠zocalo.net