|
Grex > Coop7 > #101: Proposal to limit mail to prevent abuse. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
selena
|
|
response 50 of 104:
| 
Oct 4 05:41 UTC 1995 |
Right. <wish there was some impartial way to not need validation,
and still make staf feel safe, but, oh, well..>
|
janc
|
|
response 51 of 104:
|
Oct 4 17:13 UTC 1995 |
The staff feels safe without validation. You can do anything you like on
*our* computer. But when we give you access to other people's computers,
we feel we have to be able to be a smidgeon more responsible.
|
mdw
|
|
response 52 of 104:
|
Oct 5 06:45 UTC 1995 |
Regarding #35, I think the answer is "Yes, we've had problems" but if
the proposed policy is limited to only "unverified users" (whatever that
means); I believe the proposed policy wouldn't solve the problem. In at
least one relatively annoying case, I believe the individual concerned
is (or was?) a member, & was persistantly posting some extremely abusive
articles through a mail gateway to the internet.
|
srw
|
|
response 53 of 104:
|
Oct 5 08:00 UTC 1995 |
Members and verified non-members are not a problem. We can deal with
persistent posting problems from members. I am not counting cases
involving members.
I am surprised that you do not know what a verified user is.
Our Usenet policy hinges on the concept, and was voted by the members
last year.
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 104:
|
Oct 5 16:27 UTC 1995 |
With a verified user (be they a member or not), we can talk to the person,
and if we can't settle the problem, we have the option of revoking the
verified status (and refunding any membership). Known people we can find
ways to deal with.
|
mlady
|
|
response 55 of 104:
|
Oct 6 19:16 UTC 1995 |
So, what's to top then from putting in a fake id? As a bartender,
I'vee seen some DAMN good fakes.
|
ajax
|
|
response 56 of 104:
|
Oct 6 21:27 UTC 1995 |
Absolutely nothing. People might have to send in different fake IDs if
they get kicked off Grex, but hopefully the nuisance of getting and mailing
copies of fake IDs will deter some trouble-makers.
|
mdw
|
|
response 57 of 104:
|
Oct 7 04:09 UTC 1995 |
That might be true of trouble-makers were rational folks, and merely
interested in avoiding hassle and being nice sweet people who wouldn't
hurt a fly. Occasionally, one does run across trouble-makers who are
like that. They are very much the exception.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 58 of 104:
|
Oct 7 04:52 UTC 1995 |
Re #55: Part of the reason for verification (correct me if I'm wrong,
board/staff type ppl) is liability. If we can show that we took reasonable
steps, but were fooled by a very good fake ID, things are much better for us
legally than if we didn't even TRY to verify.
|
selena
|
|
response 59 of 104:
|
Oct 7 05:06 UTC 1995 |
Jan- nope, 'cause even when you have someone who's not caused
any trouble on the net, from other sources, staff still doesn't feel
safe enough to let them go without ID.
|
janc
|
|
response 60 of 104:
|
Oct 9 04:48 UTC 1995 |
Selena -
I guess where I differ is that I think Grex's staff cannot unilaterially
decide what goes and what doesn't go on the internet. We can decide what goes
and what doesn't go on Grex. We have decided nobody needs ID to use Grex.
We might (or might not) want to declare that nobody needs ID to use the
internet, but that's way beyond our authority. General standards on the net
do expect system administrators to take some kind of effective action when
their users misbehave on the internet. We could flaunt that standard, and
we could probably get away with it for a while. But most of us feel it is
right to respect the standards of the internet community.
I think Grex has been wildly generous about giving free, anonymous access
to everything that is ours to give. The internet is not ours to give.
|
srw
|
|
response 61 of 104:
|
Oct 9 06:47 UTC 1995 |
We received another complaint today about an anonymous user posting lewd
spam-mail to a usenet group. The complaint came from the person who claims
that this grex user impersonated him. We can remove his account, but we
can't prevent him from taking out another account and doing it again.
|
nestene
|
|
response 62 of 104:
|
Oct 9 10:43 UTC 1995 |
What sort of error-message would an unverified user get when he attempts
to send mail to a restricted address? Can we make it something he'll
understand, rather than one of those cryptic mail-daemon things?
|
ajax
|
|
response 63 of 104:
|
Oct 9 15:31 UTC 1995 |
I second that suggestion.
|
srw
|
|
response 64 of 104:
|
Oct 10 00:58 UTC 1995 |
The mail daemon would detect the condition, so the mail daemon would
generate the text that goes into the bounce message. I'm sure we could make
it intelligble, but it would be a mail daemon message.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 65 of 104:
|
Oct 10 01:53 UTC 1995 |
Nether.Net offers anonymous usenet and telnet access and it doesnt
seem to be crippling them. ONly danger I see is Grex might end up being used
more as a route than a destination.
|
robh
|
|
response 66 of 104:
|
Oct 10 02:32 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, exactly like nether.net is. I suupose STeve would be
happier, though, nobody on nether.net bothers to use
party... >8)
|
srw
|
|
response 67 of 104:
|
Oct 10 06:52 UTC 1995 |
I don't buy the argument that other systems don't have to do this,
so we shouldn't either. Nyx was forced to change their policy so that
all users are verified. I don't want to go that far.
If unchecked, eventually someone will do the same thing to nether.
Nether may not care how its net-citizenship appears to others as much
as we do. Or they may. I don't know.
I can clearly see that if someone wanted to hurt any system that ran
open newuser and mail, it would be pretty easy. Right now, we're really
vulnerable, but fortunately no one wants to hurt us.
|
selena
|
|
response 68 of 104:
|
Oct 10 18:18 UTC 1995 |
Internet access is something grex has to offer, jan.
The interent is open. There are no rules of conduct, so don't try and tell me
there's a law somewhere tohide behind.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 69 of 104:
|
Oct 11 00:05 UTC 1995 |
I have noticed that nobody uses the confs on nether...I'd hate to see Grex
confs die off because so many people start logging on GRex simply to
go somewhere else. On the other hand, as I've said in the past, it is
inconsistent with an open access policy to have closed access. But
there I go being linear again.
|
janc
|
|
response 70 of 104:
|
Oct 11 03:42 UTC 1995 |
There isn't a "law." There is a common consensus on what is acceptable. So
far the internet works pretty well without a "law." If the consensus breaks
down too far, then someone will start making laws.
|
selena
|
|
response 71 of 104:
|
Oct 11 04:23 UTC 1995 |
What concensus?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 72 of 104:
|
Oct 11 15:52 UTC 1995 |
Heh. She has a point. What concensus is there, anymore? I know
I get a different opinion of "what goes" on the internet from every
ISP, freenet, .com net, and user.
|
mdw
|
|
response 73 of 104:
|
Oct 12 06:01 UTC 1995 |
Actually, many places on the internet have already started making
"laws". Read "conditions of use" at any larger university...
|
selena
|
|
response 74 of 104:
|
Oct 12 20:37 UTC 1995 |
Fine, but those laws don't apply to the entire net! And, there still
is no concensus to point at.
|