North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
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 */ | > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >
|