Motion for a new POST NSF AUP

bcurnow bcurnow at
Sat Nov 4 13:02:22 UTC 1995

For my two cents:

I also agree with John.  I think the current system where 'civic-saviors'
protest spams to the spammers' provider works fairly well.  It works as a
pressure to resist spamming.  The only thing I don't like about it are the
militant-son-of-spams.  If the current unstructured system stays, I think
there should be a simple addition to govern son-of-spammers to prevent the
kind of frontier justice used on those lawyers.  I myself will usually
forward the complaint on to the spammers.  After 2 complaints I add that
they need to stop the activity, but sometimes it's simply a lag-time or
long time-to-live on a spam that keeps complaints coming in long
afterward.  ... 

---------------- Brian  Curnow --------------

On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Tim Bass wrote:

> John Curran and I are in total agreement on John's premise that any
> Post NSF AUP is either a) unenforceable or b) subject to abuse. I suggest
> that for the moment, that we agree with John that any AUP is both:
> a)	Unenforceable;
> b)	Subject to abuse; and
> c)	Virtually impossible to authenticate.
> Giving the above, the question still remains and the original motion is still
> valid for this reason.
> If we define a Post NSF AUP, then at least everyone who uses the Internet
> will have had the opportunity to have read and understood what the current
> Internet AUP describes.
> It is possible that having a clearly defined AUP will not stop spam and
> other unacceptable uses of the net, and clearly an AUP is not enforceable
> ( and for IP security reasons should not be enforced without absolute
> authentication as John correctly points out).
> On the other hand, having a clearly defined AUP may discourage potential
> spammers and child pornographers, etc.  (not that we consider spammers
> and child pornography peddlers in the same vein..).  Also, having a 
> clearly defined Internet AUP will send a signal to the news media and
> government officials that the providers of Internet services are 
> capable of formulating policy in an area that, without self-regulation,
> has a strong potential to continue degenerating.
> Is a self-formulated Post NSF AUP, without enforcement, still a good idea?
> The answer, I suggest, is not obvious, but a debate on the subject 
> does have considerable merit, given the events of the past week or so.
> Tim
> -- 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Tim Bass                           | #include<campfire.h>                | 
> | Principal Network Systems Engineer |       for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){  |
> | The Silk Road Group, Ltd.          |           take_one_down();          |
> |                                    |           pass_it_around();         |
> |           |       }                             |
> |                                    |  back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

More information about the NANOG mailing list