|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Proposed changes to the AUP.
Two recent e-mails made me take a new look at the Nanog AUP, and I'd like to propose several changes to help clarify the policy. Several recent discussions have descended into the weeds. I'll take my share of the blame for my participation. That said, one on-list event, and several off list events have raised some lingering questions about the Nanog AUP and how it is enforced. I believe that there are a couple of changes to the AUP that would help prevent these threads from happening, and those are the issues I want to raise. If you're not familiar, the AUP is at http://www.nanog.org/aup.thml. I suspect many of you have no idea how the Nanog AUP is enforced, so I will go into that first. Moments ago we saw a glimpse on the list. The first attachment to my message (it's not in the archive yet to give you a URL) entitled "srh-jrace" is a copy of an e-mail I believe Susan accidently copied to [email protected] If you look at the CC list you'll see the intended target was [email protected] To help show that assumption is probably correct, I attach three more messages, first, second, and third. These are three cases, in chronological order, where I have been given similar warnings for AUP violations. For full context, these three messages were part of the following threads: first - http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0109/threads.html#01538 second - http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0110/threads.html#00577 (Note, there are at least three other thread roots right under it as some follow ups didn't get attributed correctly.) third - http://www.merit.edu/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/threads.html#14454 To be clear, I'm not trying to "appeal my conviction" on any of these, the first thread clearly drifted way off topic, the second I clearly mention the law and politics. The third gives me a bit more trouble, as the reason I posted was to see if anyone could operationally use this new (admittedly legal) tool, but heck, it was about law so I'm ok with being wrong on that one. I show you these as I am unhappy about the method by which these were handled. So, what are my proposals? Simple: 1) Change item 6 on http://www.nanog.org/aup.html to read "prohibited" rather than "discouraged". Discouraged suggests to me general discussion about those topics is bad, but if it has operational significance or general interest on the list it may still be appropriate. However, it appears that there is no clear way to define what would or would not be appropriate, and that the enforcement is more in line with prohibited. Changing that one word should make it much more clear, and remove all doubt. Most likely item #3 should also be prohibited and not discouraged as well. 2) The current AUP states: ] Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally ] and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists ] in violating the guidelines, the convener of NANOG, Merit Network, ] Inc., will take action to filter the offender's messages to the ] list. I have several problems with this: * There is no way for the nanog membership to review that the policy is being applied evenly and fairly. * Where there are ambiguities in the appropriateness of a topic there is no way to know that the moderators are using the same criteria the general membership would use. * It does nothing to educate other mailing list participants as to what is or is not appropriate. This method provides a gentle and constant reminder of the AUP that always provides new and relevant examples. * It does nothing to stop the thread. Several people have received these after others for the same thread -- I think we all have an implicit assumption that if it's allowed to continue by the moderators it must be ok to reply. To that end, I propose the following new method of handling things, which I believe is more in-line with what other mailing lists do: When inappropriate messages are sent to the list the convener will reply both to the list and to the poster pointing out that the topic is in violation of the AUP and should cease. Chronic offenders will be notified personally that their messages may be filtered or that they may be removed from the list as deemed appropriate by the conveners. -- Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org From [email protected] Thu Sep 25 09:11:13 2003 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8PDBC8h005650 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id BD132912AA; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 90B4E912AB; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89A8912AA for <[email protected]>; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A3CF65DDD5; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: from backin5.merit.edu (backin5.merit.edu [198.108.60.28]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583565DDB0; Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:08:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Susan Harris <[email protected]> To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: williams spamhaus blacklist In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Errors-To: [email protected] X-Loop: nanog X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_LOOP autolearn=ham version=2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Status: RO Content-Length: 1029 Lines: 34 Dr. Race - this is the second time I have contacted you concerning a NANOG mailing list AUP violation. Please refer to the AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html If you again violate any terms of the AUP, we'll need to withdraw your posting privileges from the list. Susan Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:29:42 +0100, Steve Linford wrote: > > >for the benefit of those providers on nanag who use our SBL system, > >rest assured we will be removing the escalation 'any minute now' as > >WCG are now in contact with us and I understand are pulling spammer > >plugs. > > Elegant understatement of basic principle that only hitting the > management scum over the head with a mallet will change their > behavior. Leo, are you listening? > > In my judgment rehashing this issue on NANOG is 1000% appropriate > because the people on this list are the ones who have to carry the > bad news to their masters. > > Jeffrey Race > > From [email protected] Fri Sep 21 08:40:03 2001 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8LCe3N05179 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:40:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from [email protected]) Received: from backin5.merit.edu (backin5.merit.edu [198.108.60.28]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2B45DDDE; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 08:40:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Susan Harris <[email protected]> To: Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Checking visitors entering your facility In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Content-Length: 2302 Lines: 60 As concerned as we all are by recent threats to U.S. security, we ask that you discuss only operational aspects of the problems on the NANOG list. See the NANOG list AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html We thank you for your cooperation in helping to maintain the content and quality of the NANOG mailing list. Susan Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:54:07PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote: > > seriously, do you have any idea who is emptying your trash basket? do you > > really think that the bean counters took that sort of thing into > > consideration when they selected the firm who does that work? > > This reminds me of a pet peeve. Many business use services where > they provide boxes in your office and come around periodically and > shred / recycle them. Many businesses find these more economical > than maintaining large shredders on prem. > > These sound safe. They shred it in front of a company rep, so you > can see your papers turn into bits. That said, there are a number > of expected, and unexpected attacks: > > 1) Someone can take the whole box (say overnight), or pick the > lock on a box. > > 2) A string with something sticky (say gum) can retrieve papers > from a locked box. > > 3) I have personally witnessed one incident where while empting > the unit into the shredder on the loading dock (in front of a > company rep) a good number of papers were blown away in a strong > wind. > > 4) I have yet to see an office where when the company collects, > a company rep follows them receptical to receptical. They > generally dump them into a big hopper, and could take papers > along the way. > > So, if you're going to use them, at least have a company rep follow > the person from box to box to make sure there is no tampering. > Dump them often, so there are few papers in there, and little > opportunity for the night staff to take the box or fish some papers > out of it. > > I guess it's better than nothing, but companies really should buy > shred-it-right-now type shredders. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - [email protected] > Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 > Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org > From [email protected] Mon Oct 29 13:34:54 2001 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9TIYpN17590 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:34:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from [email protected]) Received: from backin5.merit.edu (backin5.merit.edu [198.108.60.28]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FD75DDAE; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:34:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:34:46 -0500 (EST) From: Susan Harris <[email protected]> To: Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Digital Island sponsors DoS attempt? In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 2135 Lines: 50 Leo: I've contacted you twice during the past 16 months about violations of the NANOG mailing list AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.thml Again, the current discussion of the political aspects of spam does not conform to the AUP. At your next violation, we'll need to remove your posting priveleges from the list. Susan Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:24:37PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > What exactly does "established business relationship" mean in the > > context of (for example) the NANOG mailing list? (Note that once there > > is a business relationship, there's no requirement that the solicitation > > has to be related - I continually get calls from various financial > > institutions plugging other services) > > Sadly I think we'll always be getting "spammed" by people we do > business with, and I don't think there's any way to write the rules > so this doesn't happen. While slightly more obvious in e-mail, > it's not much different than what happens in other mediums: > > * You get a bill from someone, and in the same envelope they have > flyers for some of their new products. > > * You get a call from your credit card company offering travel > insurance for all the purchases you make on the call. > > * You call customer service for your new computer and while on hold > hear ads about cut-rate internet service. > > I think the legislative presumption needs to be that if you're > doing business with someone then they can contact you about pretty > much anything, and if you don't like their contacting you can end > the business relationship so they can't do it anymore. Writing > rules to eliminate such communications I think would very quickly > start to step on normal business practices, and even if everyone > on nanog wanted that the $$$'s that make business and politics go > around would never go for it. > > -- > Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org > From [email protected] Wed Sep 24 22:06:30 2003 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8P26U8h081884 for <[email protected]>; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from backin5.merit.edu (backin5.merit.edu [198.108.60.28]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09ABB5DDCA; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:06:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Susan Harris <[email protected]> To: Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: New CA Law In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE autolearn=ham version=2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Status: RO Content-Length: 1016 Lines: 29 Mr. Bicknell - some time ago I sent you a 'last warning' about your off-topic postings to the NANOG list. Your message below concerns spam, the subject of two of my previous messages, and politics, which is also off-topic for the list. Refer to the NANOG list AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html At your next AUP violation, we'll need to remove your posting privileges from the list. Susan Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > Word is Gray Davis signed this law, > http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_186_bill_20030911_enrolled.html > today. It seems to be a pretty strong anti-spam bill. Given all > the talk of black lists and DDOS's and the like does anyone think > this will make a difference? Is anyone planning on using the law > to recover damages? > > -- > Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org > Attachment:
pgp00057.pgp
|