On Sat, 15 Apr 1995, Aldo-Pier Solari wrote:
 
> ]Trish Forrest <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>....
> ]abuse on one list.   I'm  still  uncomfortable with the 'concept' of
> ]filtering out everyone on a network because of one person.  Since  I
> ]received  no reply from the postmaster (except a "Got your mail, get
> ]back to.") I guess they didn't care one way or the other.
>
> There  are perhaps two aspects worth discussing here:
>
> (1) Punishment of  whole  groups  is  illegal  in  most  "civilized"
> countries.   If  the  owner  required  you  to  filter a whole group
> (already subscribed to the conference) based upon a few individual's
> behaviour, it may be considered  as  a  group punishment.  We need a
> code  for  listowners  based  on  International   law.    Also,   an
> International  board  of  Senior  listowners  with who would discuss
> conflicts and ethical issues and give recommendations;
 
  In this specific case I checked and there were no existing
subscribers from this network.  I'd like to know if anyone out
there has ever served off a network and under what circumstances
and how you justified it.
 
  To the more general issue.  Yes, a code of conduct or some acceptable
standard agreed upon by all for handling these situations might be
effective.  I don't think anything as formal as you are suggesting is
realistic in a world where one country holds one act as illegal and
another views that same act as a right. We are in the middle of just
such a case that crosses international boundaries.  Even within country
discrepancies exist.  For example, I cannot advertize my consulting
business from here because my service provider will pull the plug
on our Internet connection if the University does not remove my privs,
but I can telnet to a userid on the other side of the country and
advertize all I want.
 
  Another side to the issue is from the perspective of the List-owner
who says I have a right to restrict my list to anyone I want.  Do
they?  If they have the right to request a local only list and the
right to request an Internet/BITNET wide list, do they not also
have the right to restrict it to non-commercial networks?  Be it a
List-owner or a network, do either have the right to restrict commercial
traffic?  Does this mean that the person or network admins live in
an uncivilized country? ;-)
 
> (2)  I  have run several times into the AOL and COMPUSERVE problems:
> In FISH-ECOLOGY,  frequency  of  bad  e-discipline  is significantly
> higher among XX.COM subscribers than in any other group:  Bounces  [
> mailbox  full,  user  unknown (cause they pay no fee)], don't unsub,
> don't read aims &  rules,  etc.   Furthermore, spamming and the like
> comes to networks more often from enterprises with  a  .COM  access.
> However,  there are very serious subscribers too (retired academics,
> journalists, freelance writers, teachers, etc.) behind XX.COM.  They
> are highly motivated and they  _pay_  for the relatively high volume
> of traffic.
 
   I'm not a list-owner, but I suspect you get a representative number
of non-deliveries from all over.  I'm referring to spams.  If I were
a retired academic and used a .COM to keep in touch on academic lists,
they would soon loose my $$ if I got restricted because of spams
coming from my provider.
 
>
> I have contacted .COM Postmasters several times: The  problems  will
> only  grow  if  they  do not actively educate their users.  Perhaps,
> letting them know in advance that "if statistics get worse" they may
> not be allowed into the  academic  networks may set some pressure on
> them.
 
  I think education would be very difficult for them.  They are not in
the business of 'educating users' but collecting and making $$.  You
will find the motivated postmaster who may spend their personal time
to educate people because they receive complaints from List-owners and
menbers in response to spams.  I've never seen a Code of Conduct from
any commercial network, has anyone else?  It would be interesting to
see what is included and perhaps we could all work together to include
spams, commercial traffic, etc. on academic networks since it seems to
be a problem.  Or, maybe we could just create a commercial list. :-)
 
   I really don't have the answers, which is why I posted here.  Thank
you for your thought provoking comments.  As I mentioned before I
have a standard msg I mail out to individuals which provides for an
avenue of appeal if they feel they have been treated unfaily.  I suppose
this could be modified for a network and sent to a postmaster if it
becomes necessary.
 
   Again, thank you for your input.
 
   --Trish
--
Trish Forrest, Computing Services, University of Windsor