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 */ |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
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 */ |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>