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. 

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.

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?

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.

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? 

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.

response 70 of 130:

Dec 4 14:46 UTC 2003

Tod: The limit that newuser gives is 100K of mail per day.

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.

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. . . .

response 76 of 130:

Dec 4 19:34 UTC 2003

I think all of the staff is both benevolent and competent.  I don't 
think there are any bad intentions from the staff.  I vehemently 
disagree with resp:52.

My concern was for the election.  I was under the impression Jamie 
could not receive votes because the jp2 account had been disabled.  
That appears to have been a bad assumption on my part.  (You folks are 
better at this than I thought.)

I still don't see any malicious intent by jp2.  If he apologizes and 
promises not to do it again, would you reinstate his account?

response 78 of 130:

Dec 4 21:50 UTC 2003

That's good.

It does leave a question or two in my mind, though:

Did you know it was against Grex system policy to send mass e-mails?

Did you know it would cause a big drain for the system?  If not, with 
your background, how could you not have known?

response 80 of 130:

Dec 5 04:20 UTC 2003

It's called 'nice' , n00b.