|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 149 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 77 of 149:
| 
Jan 19 18:45 UTC 2006 |
And every time you've suggested it several counterexamples to "no one needs
..." have been brought up. If it were a members-or-dialups-only I think fewer
would object on strictly pragmatic grounds, but I still don't agree with that
position. (The idea of anything as a "member perk," IMO, is in discord with the
founding principles of Grex -- I suggest you read the discussion about the
decision to restrict outgoing telnet and ftp.)
|
jadecat
|
|
response 78 of 149:
|
Jan 19 19:45 UTC 2006 |
Technically no one NEEDS e-mail at all. Or the internet. Or water beds.
But there are people who want those things.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 79 of 149:
|
Jan 19 19:57 UTC 2006 |
re #78: exactly. Let's not talk about "needs".
|
spooked
|
|
response 80 of 149:
|
Jan 19 20:49 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, but if they want it they have a zillion other places they can find
it - so that argument is just as shakey.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 81 of 149:
|
Jan 19 20:59 UTC 2006 |
There are several people in the 734 area code whose only source of email -- or
any Internet at all -- is Grex. (Some of them are introduced to Grex in their
first exposure to a *computer*.) While Grex is not an ISP, it has in the past
made these people a priority -- "open access" is, after all, one of its
founding principles. I don't want to change this; my family was in this
position for a long time, and might be again.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 82 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:04 UTC 2006 |
I am in the 734 area code, and I do not support the idea that people
living closer to Grex are a "priority". If there is no financial problem
with keeping the lines open, then okay. But if Grex needs to decide
whether to dump modem access or dump disk space...I vote for dumping the
modem access.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 83 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:09 UTC 2006 |
(So would I -- but I don't think it'll come to that.) By "priority" I don't
mean "highest-priority" -- I'm just saying that to assume that everyone who
logs into Grex has other access to email and thus we can freely restrict it to
members only has a false antecedent.
|
richard
|
|
response 84 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:20 UTC 2006 |
If you dont restrict email to members, then how else do you solve the email
spam problem other than closing newuser? Because these are likely not new
users spamming, they are persons we all know who they are, who have a habit
of running newuser constantly and churning out new logins and email addresses.
|
twenex
|
|
response 85 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:24 UTC 2006 |
My, to WHOM could you be referring?
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:24 UTC 2006 |
last year I had a certain grexer flood my email box with 10,000 emails. I
notified staff, but what could they do? If they took out his login, he'd just
run newuser again. If they blocked his ip address, he'd use an anonymizer.
unless you restrict offsite email to new users, or take it away altogether,
what can staff do? they can do nothing...
|
kingjon
|
|
response 87 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:28 UTC 2006 |
There have been several suggestions for reducing the *amount* of mail someone
could send. I also wouldn't mind a delay (even of a couple of weeks).
If "we all know who they are," then why haven't their ISPs been notified of
their activities?
|
cross
|
|
response 88 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:40 UTC 2006 |
My understanding is that the restrictions on email are not for email within
grex, but rather for mail going from grex to the rest of the Internet.
So what if there's some set of users who are in some area code local to
michigan who can only use grex as their email source? Adjust the technology
so they're not shut out, or ask them to contribute to grex financially in
some way.
Or, introduce another class of users who are somehow considered `verified.'
Verification could be by becoming a member (one of the requirements for
membership is that your identity is verified by the treasurer), or by going
through some other process (logging in from a dialup or sending a letter
via US mail to grex, for instance). Verification gets you onto the green
sheet to send email offsite.
Perhaps someone doesn't want to pony up the $6 a month to become a member.
Okay, fair enough, but are you serious telling me they can't come up with
50c for a stamp, envelope, and sheet of paper?
Don't think of it as a ``member perk.'' Create another class of users,
of which members may be a subset, who are verified and therefore trusted
to send offsite email.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 89 of 149:
|
Jan 19 21:43 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't object to that, either, except that verification of non-US users
(some of whom may not have other email -- I'm thinking of something in the
discussion the *last* time this was brought up) would cost them more than 50
cents.
|
richard
|
|
response 90 of 149:
|
Jan 19 22:00 UTC 2006 |
verification involves too much staff time. even just verifying members means
somebody has to physically do it, and grex isn't paying anyone for that time
|
keesan
|
|
response 91 of 149:
|
Jan 19 22:25 UTC 2006 |
Only new members are verified, not all 47 or so of us every year. How many
new members do we get in a year? And how many people do you think would write
grex asking for outgoing email in a year? They could send $1 to sdf instead
and get a much bigger mailbox.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 92 of 149:
|
Jan 19 22:28 UTC 2006 |
The people you introduce to computers and to Grex are the people I was thinking
of, Keesan. The verification idea was intended as something to allow them email
while restricting it for the rest of the nonmembers. (If SDF has a local dialup
phone line in the 734 area code, I wasn't aware of it.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 93 of 149:
|
Jan 20 01:02 UTC 2006 |
FOr $7/month you can get sdf-related internet connection, with sdf as your
email and webspace provider. Local phones all over the country. Anyone
living in Washtenaw County should be able to afford $6/month and if not, come
up with a good reason why they should be subsidized to be a member.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 94 of 149:
|
Jan 20 01:40 UTC 2006 |
I think the idea that providing a service to someone is "subsidizing" them is
foreign to the central principles of Grex -- *open access.* I suggest that
everyone look at the precedent vote (found in
/usr/local/grexdoc/archives/votes/vote02); the primary reason for restricting
access to ftp, telnet, etc., was that they took up too much bandwidth. I have
no objections to requiring some sort of verification (which is what that motion
said the Board could do once the link increased), but I worry at discriminating
against either local (734 area code) or international users.
|
keesan
|
|
response 95 of 149:
|
Jan 20 15:27 UTC 2006 |
Most of my spam has international 'from' addresses such as .de and .cn.
Low income residents of our county can qualify for $150/month of food stamps.
I will gladly buy $6/month of food from any of them that can't come up with
$6/month to be a grex member and use outgoing ftp and telnet.
|
aruba
|
|
response 96 of 149:
|
Jan 20 20:24 UTC 2006 |
Eliminating modems or restricting services to members only is a change to
Grex's basic mission, and could jeopardize our 501(c)3 status with the IRS.
See Grex's 501(c)3 application at
http://www.cyberspace.org/local/grex/501c3.html
for what they expect of us now.
|
richard
|
|
response 97 of 149:
|
Jan 20 21:09 UTC 2006 |
but grex already restricts some things to members, like outbound telnet and
ftp right?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 98 of 149:
|
Jan 20 21:16 UTC 2006 |
Yes, but for the primary consideration of *bandwidth*. I suggest you read the
precedent-setting vote.
|
cross
|
|
response 99 of 149:
|
Jan 21 00:55 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #90; Then come up with a way to make it easy; use the technology.
For instance, Grex considers receipt of money from an account that's been
verified on paypal as sufficient verification. Why wouldn't sending a penny
via PayPal be considered sufficient for verification purposes? Perhaps we
could consider some sort of vouch-for program where members could verify
the identity of other users (here, I'm thinking specifically of users who
are set up with grex access by, say, Sindi and Jim). We could consider some
sort of call-back verification for dial-in users, similar to how BBS's used
to operate in the dial-up world back in the day. Most of this would be
handled electronically with a minimim of manual intervention.
Regarding #96; I don't think you need to make it ``members only.'' But it
is reasonable to impose some level of verification on the process, and I
don't see why members shouldn't be allowed to verify users. That said, I
don't see why getting rid of dialin access would be a fundamental change
in grex's mission.
|
wlevak
|
|
response 100 of 149:
|
Jan 21 06:13 UTC 2006 |
It is not necessary to verify the identity of every user. Users who connect
through a service that requires identification to get the service, are already
identified to a sufficient extent, ie. educational institutions, users who
use their employer's access, etc. It's the commercial services that sell
access to anyone for money, that is the problem. Yahoo and Yahoo Korea, are
two that produce a lot of spam.
|
keesan
|
|
response 101 of 149:
|
Jan 21 16:17 UTC 2006 |
So do we allow access to anyone coming from an .edu? Is there a list of
trustworthy ISPs somewhere? Would every applicant for outgoing email have
to be manually checked out?
|