|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 274 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 125 of 274:
| 
Jan 18 03:29 UTC 1997 |
What is needed is to stop the user from running prgrams that send
mail.
That could be done by removing the account, or by changing the
password, so that the user could no longer use it. The latter is
only better if it proffers reversibility. Reversibility is only
possible if the user can be identified. We don't have a
particularly handy way of restoring an encrypted password.
I probably would have chosen the latter rather than the former
approach, but I wouldn't second-guess this decision. I think in
this case it wouldn't have mattered.
|
scg
|
|
response 126 of 274:
|
Jan 18 03:53 UTC 1997 |
Assuming this was a one shot thing, we could stop the mail from going out by
just deleting the mail. The problem that lingers long after the mail has been
sent, though, is that of mail coming back to the system, either from angry
people wanting to reply to it, or due to incorrect addressing on the mail
being sent out. We don't really care if this user can still read mail or not.
Since it appears that the only reason the mail bomb was done was as vandalism,
probably the user doesn't care either. What we do care about is load on the
system. If the account isn't there, the mail will be stopped before it comes
over our Internet link, since Grex won't accept mail for a user who doesn't
exist.
|
dang
|
|
response 127 of 274:
|
Jan 18 04:46 UTC 1997 |
Besides, the usual policy is to warn people the first (few?) times they do
something like this, and then reap the account. I too support the decision.
|
drew
|
|
response 128 of 274:
|
Jan 18 05:12 UTC 1997 |
Mail from ford *did* make it to tir.com. Still not msaking it here.
I amgetting severly delayed echo/la.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 129 of 274:
|
Jan 18 07:01 UTC 1997 |
Grex strikes a better blow for nettiquette by warning the user first,
explaining what is involved. The bomb should have been stopped, of course.
But just maybe someone like that receiving a courteous, even if stern,
response, might think twice. Of course, they also might not, in which
case... nuke em!
|
headdoc
|
|
response 130 of 274:
|
Jan 18 15:45 UTC 1997 |
Valerie, some people are always second guessing and criticising staff actions.
That is their perogative, but for my part, I have known most of you through
Grex for many years and trust your decisions to be in the best interest of
the vast majority of our users. I have a feeling that if you could have given
a warning first, as Rane suggested, you would have. If you thought it the
best course of action for the system, I support what you decided to do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 274:
|
Jan 18 17:51 UTC 1997 |
There have been other instances where staff has acted precipitously and, after
discussion, agreed that there were perhaps better courses of action - in
retrospect. I certainly hold staff in high respect, but no one(s) is(are)
perfect, which is why we have a democratic system and, in fact, conferences.
|
richard
|
|
response 132 of 274:
|
Jan 18 19:01 UTC 1997 |
I, too, hold staff in high regard (although they dont believe me) SCG's
explanation makes perfect sense. My initial reaction was that when you
delete an account, there is no redress of grievance for the person
involved. The user cant object when he has no account with which to
file his objection.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 133 of 274:
|
Jan 18 19:23 UTC 1997 |
Would we happen to have identd tracks we could use to mail him an axplanation
of why we nuked him?
|
richard
|
|
response 134 of 274:
|
Jan 18 19:35 UTC 1997 |
Although there is a high likelihood that that user is still around.
Most people dont tend to run mailbombs using their regular logins.
Might be wise to check the logs and see if any other login has been
coming from the same location and email warnings there. Is it policy to
inform the user's ISP (assuming it can be identified) if they have been
doing evil things here?
|
dpc
|
|
response 135 of 274:
|
Jan 18 19:57 UTC 1997 |
What headdoc said.
|
mary
|
|
response 136 of 274:
|
Jan 18 20:28 UTC 1997 |
What rcurl said.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 137 of 274:
|
Jan 19 02:06 UTC 1997 |
what staff members did and said.
|
ajax
|
|
response 138 of 274:
|
Jan 19 05:36 UTC 1997 |
What rcurl said, but I'm about to enter an item about this in co-op,
so we can say it all there. :-)
|
valerie
|
|
response 139 of 274:
|
Jan 20 06:05 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
drew
|
|
response 140 of 274:
|
Jan 22 02:02 UTC 1997 |
Mail from ford finally made it through. But the response was still a bit
sluggish as of this afternoon. I shall see tomorrow if it's going the other
way.
|
ajax
|
|
response 141 of 274:
|
Jan 22 13:05 UTC 1997 |
I wonder if perhaps their Internet e-mail is running slowly
everywhere. I know Ford uses IBM for some e-mail delivery, and IBM
is among the companies that's recently been deluged with heavy
Internet mail increases, resulting in multi-day e-mail delays. AOL
is in the same boat. As technically marginal networking services
move from per-hour to unlimited-use Internet fees, their performance
goes from slow to worse than Grex! :-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 142 of 274:
|
Jan 22 18:02 UTC 1997 |
Grex is refusing a 1.5K text ftp upload via Fetch - it opens and then quits.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 143 of 274:
|
Jan 22 18:27 UTC 1997 |
Scratch that...it "quit" because it had transferred the file - in five seconds
after launch. I'm just not used to that kind of performance... 8^/
|
albaugh
|
|
response 144 of 274:
|
Jan 22 19:28 UTC 1997 |
grex e-mail to Ford hasn't seemed particularly laggy to me, but perhaps I
don't have as high expectations as drew...
|
srw
|
|
response 145 of 274:
|
Jan 24 02:07 UTC 1997 |
Grex was off the net today from 6:20 PM until almost 9.
The router had failed, and needed to be reset manually.
|
drew
|
|
response 146 of 274:
|
Jan 24 05:49 UTC 1997 |
Well, mail sent from grex, while logged in, gets to ford. And mail from
ford makes it to grex. But nowadays, either the mail handler is not
functioning, or else the output is simply getting lost. The same behavior
has been occurring with m-net.
|
davel
|
|
response 147 of 274:
|
Jan 24 10:55 UTC 1997 |
I think Grex must be off the net now ... at least, I get problems with
connecting with anything with lynx, & trying to telnet out I get "unknown
host", suggesting that DNS from offsite is not working.
|
valerie
|
|
response 148 of 274:
|
Jan 24 16:25 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 274:
|
Jan 24 16:32 UTC 1997 |
This morning the system 'froze', ping showed no response, and after a few
minutes I wwas disconnected. I was able to reconnect immediately, and ping
was down to 400 ms or so. This happened twice. What is the cause?
|
