|
Grex > Oldcoop > #43: Account of Board Candidate Terminated | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 130 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 50 of 130:
| 
Dec 3 23:16 UTC 2003 |
Re 43:
There's a big difference between spamming and just using too much disk space
or getting huge attachments. Generally the disk stuff usually happens by
accidenct or lack of computer knowledge. Spamming or mailbombing requires
one to actually write or download a script and then run it - obviously there's
clear intent to abuse the system.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 51 of 130:
|
Dec 4 00:01 UTC 2003 |
Re 49> You may like to think so, but I doubt that would have happened. Let's
say it was mary's account that sent the spam. I'm pretty sure staff would have
just sent a warning. It's easy to deny that you would now, but you know that's
what woul have happened.
|
tod
|
|
response 52 of 130:
|
Dec 4 00:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 53 of 130:
|
Dec 4 00:36 UTC 2003 |
Frankly, I didn't think Old Grex was this clever. First, a random Board
Member invited, in language vague enough to later deny it, jp2 to send E-mails
to new users imploring them to become members. Then, Staff confused the issue
by having each member doing something entirely different. Gelinas wouldn't
say what happened, while other posted and bragged about it all over BBS; one
staff member ignored it, while another received calls from his wife about it;
other gave jp2 a warning, while others supported punishment. These
manourveres were so successful that we still have no idea, other than a rumour
that it was a staff member who won't defend her actions, who actually splatted
jp2's account. Now, Staff's pretending jp2, someone who's donated time and
money to Grex, broke a rule by following the directions of a Board Member!
I'm glad you see through it too, tod.
|
aruba
|
|
response 54 of 130:
|
Dec 4 00:37 UTC 2003 |
Well, I'm not sure what "gorilla dust" is, but I do believe it's the truth
that the staff regularly locks accounts of people who send the volume of
mail that Jamie did, without a warning. I don't know how to dispell this
kind of conspiracy theory. Sapna, what would it take to convince you that
what Valerie did had nothing to do with who was sending the spam?
|
willcome
|
|
response 55 of 130:
|
Dec 4 00:39 UTC 2003 |
Aruba, why do you, personally, support the hijacking of the election?
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 130:
|
Dec 4 01:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 57 of 130:
|
Dec 4 01:39 UTC 2003 |
Hmm.... other is a staff member of sorts, as partyadm, but does not have
the access to lock accounts. I'm new enough on staff that I wait for
the more experienced to offer explanations.
I've not run newuser lately, but it *does* provide guidelines on acceptable
use. Finishing newuser and then logging in is acceptance of the conditions
of use.
This is the second time in recent memory that a *member's* account has
been locked for mass-mailing. The last time, the treasurer asked to be
notified when (or was it before?) a member's account was locked.
I looks to me like people who aren't particularly liked get MORE leniency
than others. STeve could (and admits should) have locked the account,
but didn't.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 58 of 130:
|
Dec 4 01:47 UTC 2003 |
Mark, I'm not saying that Valerie locked jp2's account becuase of some
dis-like she has for him over his ideas or campaigning style. Frankly, I'm
not even sure that Valerie is even involved that much in the Grex online
community (except for her baby diary) to really know what's going on. But you
have to admit that if she saw that it was remmers or mary or someone she knew
sending the spam she she would have warned them rather than just splat them.
Of course that would stem from the fact that she'd prolly think someone hacked
their account or something. Such a benefit of doubt would not be extended to
someone she didn't know. Which again isn't quite right. Especially since all
users are equal yadda yadda yadda. To tell the truth I don't really blame her.
She doesn't know jp2, what he stands for and I don't know whether he's even
standing for an election. She's a busy woman.
Anyhow, after this whole thing came out, the way people have justified the
splatting is apalling. no one gave a thought to the reason bwhind the
"spamming" (I'm not sure it's even spamming, but again we could split hairs
on what is the actual definition of spam) Again, I pretty much think that if
it was someone else like say me who did something like this, I woul have
gotten a severe warning and had my account restored.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 59 of 130:
|
Dec 4 01:52 UTC 2003 |
Was the treasurer notified when jp2's account was lost (either before or
when)?
STeve admits to not locking jp22'account because he was busy, not because he
felt he deserved more leniency.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 60 of 130:
|
Dec 4 02:04 UTC 2003 |
The treasurer is a member of the Board and so was notified at the same
time as everyone else: valerie reported what she did when she did it.
If a staff member thinks another staff or board member's account has
been hacked, the right thing to do is to lock the account immediately.
I'd be *very* surprised were the account *not* locked.
|
scott
|
|
response 61 of 130:
|
Dec 4 02:31 UTC 2003 |
Re 51: If (to use your example) Mary's account was found spamming, it almost
certainly *would* be locked. I would have, anyway.
|
keesan
|
|
response 62 of 130:
|
Dec 4 02:49 UTC 2003 |
Someone said they received huge attachments. Icannot receive any over about
70K, the mail just gets rejected, then people write to ask why, and I give
them my webmail address and it does not happen again from the same person.
Most days I receive over 100K of spam. Is there some way to program things
to make it impossible to send out mail to more than 10 people at a time?
|
naftee
|
|
response 63 of 130:
|
Dec 4 02:52 UTC 2003 |
I think all staff members who do not respond regularily to the coop item when
there is an issue should be removed from GreX staff.
|
willcome
|
|
response 64 of 130:
|
Dec 4 03:05 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. M-Net was even willing to GET RID OF ITS ENTIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
because they didn't read enough police.cf.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 65 of 130:
|
Dec 4 03:52 UTC 2003 |
56: If it helps, I have twice asked the Board and Staff, today, what X is,
and have received no response whatsoever.
|
scott
|
|
response 66 of 130:
|
Dec 4 04:44 UTC 2003 |
X depends on the means of sending. If you were to sit down and individually
type each email in and send it to one or two addresses, you could do that all
day without getting into trouble. If you wrote a script to send 25, you
probably wouldn't get noticed, but it would still be an abuse.
Are you looking for a specific X so you could regularly send X-1?
|
willcome
|
|
response 67 of 130:
|
Dec 4 04:52 UTC 2003 |
He's looking for how many mails over what period of time constitutes a spam.
He made that quite clear.
|
remmers
|
|
response 68 of 130:
|
Dec 4 11:38 UTC 2003 |
Re #58, #60: Joe's right. If a staff member noticed that my account
was being used for some activity that violated terms of use or was
seriously impacting system performance, I would hope that they'd lock
my account immediately. It would either be because I'd made a mistake
and done something unintentionally or because my account had been
broken into. In situations like that, it's best to assume the worst
and straighten it out later.
|
keesan
|
|
response 69 of 130:
|
Dec 4 14:05 UTC 2003 |
We used to send out a monthly newsletter (text, about 1-2K) to close to 100
people and nobody objected. It did not require a script.
|
aruba
|
|
response 70 of 130:
|
Dec 4 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Tod: The limit that newuser gives is 100K of mail per day.
|
willcome
|
|
response 71 of 130:
|
Dec 4 15:10 UTC 2003 |
Did jp2 send more than 100K? I doubt it.
|
gull
|
|
response 72 of 130:
|
Dec 4 15:19 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:52: I disagree that there are no acceptable use guidelines. See
resp:43.
If jp2's actions were actually making the system unusable, not just
potentially annoying people, then I understand and support staff's
actions. One person can't be allowed to load the system so heavily that
no one else can use it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 130:
|
Dec 4 15:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
dcat
|
|
response 74 of 130:
|
Dec 4 15:40 UTC 2003 |
So you knew the limit and you went *far* in excess of it. Sounds to me like
you got exactly what was coming to you.
I don't think there should be any kind of exemption for election candidates.
I don't want Grex election spam any more than I want Pitt Student Government
election spam, or Presidential election spam. . . .
|