On Sun, 16 Apr 1995, Aldo-Pier Solari wrote:
 
> ] From:    Trish Forrest <[log in to unmask]>
>
> ]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.
>
> I would be optimistic (i.e.  "the glass is 50%  full,  not  empty"):
> Western  countries  have  their constitutions and law based on Roman
> Law.  For instance, you may bear  arms  in the US and not in Sweden.
> However, you may not go to college in the US with a pump-gun hanging
> from your shoulder.
 
  I appreciate and admire your optimism and although one cannot bear
arms here in Canada either, that does not help this situation.  I don't
think it is realistic because of what I have seen in the current
case which involves pornography according to Canadian law, but not
according to the laws of other nations.  This 'material' aspect
would have to be solved.  No, I have to agree with another poster
who said in not so many words, it is not a question of formal law.
These things nations will never agree upon, and there is much more
agreement on this list than one could ever hope for on an International
Law level that is in a formal court.
 
  I have seen posted here a general agreement for handling individuals
who cause problems on lists.  For example, there is agreement that a
listowner should send a private mail first, asking the person to stop
a particular behavior.  If that doesn't work, the listowner should
send a mail to the list asking those involved to take the "flame"
off list (this is so that list members can see that the listowner is
taking the matter seriously).  The final solution, if the first two
don't work, is to delete/filter the person.
 
 I'm wondering if there is an agreement on how to handle a request
to filter off a network (Yes, Douglas, I mean a commercial network
such as AOL or Compuserve to be defined as network by my usage).
 
> There are several agreements & conventions (UN, UNESCO, some of them
> regarded as International Law as, for instance "The Law of the Sea",
> etc.)  which  have  been  ratified  by  most  countries.   Even   in
> networking  and  e-conferences  where law may hang behind, there are
> convergency processes concerning rights, use & access.  I am sure it
> would not be _that_ hard  to  push-together some Senior listowners &
> sysops (say, the LISTSERV  and  MAJORDOMO  ones  with  international
> lists  to  start  with)  to  set  up a code covering ethics, law and
> common conflicts related to these  activities (and a Senior board to
> go to when conflicts arise).
 
  I have no doubt that this may come to pass, Aldo-Pier, but not in
my life time since most of the powers that be who would make or discuss
such aggreements, don't even know what e-mail is. :-)
 
> ]  [...]  do  they  not  also  have  the  right  to  restrict  it to
> non-commercial networks?
>
> As far as I understand, there is a "right" to restrict anything  you
> would  like.   However,  I  ask: Is it ethical to deny access to the
> information to individuals who  have  access to a conference through
 
  Let me answer this more explicitly, since I did not in previous mail.
Unethical?  Indeed, in any situation it could be considered unethical
to restrict 'the many' for the actions of one person.  That is why I'm
posting to this group.  Am I correct?  Are you?  I don't know...how
could we know if a great good could be served by serving off a number
of domains for behavior which is not 'punished' to use your term.
If more listowners and postmasters server off commercial networks at
the first spam, ignoring their ethics, perhaps a new Code of Conduct
would exist on these networks in the future.  Perhaps these very
networks would be applying to listowners to 'let in' their academics
who would like to 'keep in touch'?
 
> commercial networks ?. I am afraid it is not.  As a matter of  fact,
 
  I won't argue semantics with you and in time the distinction may
become blurry, but in the strict sense, AOL, Compuserve, etc., are
commercial networks even if they be used by academics who do not
have a provision in their contract to retain their userid after
retirement.  I freely admit that my history is in BITNET and our
current service provider for this Province is very BITNET-like in
its policy.  I also recognize that times are changing and not all
commercial networks carry commercial traffic and grant/sell accounts
to companies.
 
> I  understand  some  of  you  see XX.COM as the problem-children.  I
> would say the problem is  not  the pistol (service provider) but the
> one  who  spamms  (the  individual  users:   commonly   small   biz,
> environmental groups or some other kind of "crusaders").
 
  This is the same kind of analogy that the US uses against our gun
control laws. It isn't the gun (the service provider) but the
individual who uses it.  It doesn't wash.  I know there are aruguments
for and against this issue, but suffice it to say that since individuals
are not responsible, the country assumes that responsibility for them
no matter how innappropriate that may be.  That is not the issue.
 
> FISH-ECOLOGY, for instance, is a conference which got a single  spam
> message when it started (which started a flame war) but never again:
> The   flags   Private,   Subs_By_Owner   and  -most  important-  the
> cooperation from the subscribers  to  ignore such provocations close
> the gates for spamms.  Furthermore, a good measure in  FISH-ECO  was
> to  make  clear  that  whatever  is sent to the conference it is the
> resposibility of the original author (included forwarded material).
 
  Yes, I understand this and it is one solution.  The solution is to
make the listowner responsible, to make the listowner invest the time
to prevent spams.  I would prefer to make the service provider
responsible for the users of their service.  Perhaps we can agree
to disagree on this issue.
 
> ]I think education would be very difficult for them.  They are not in
> ]the business of 'educating users' but collecting and making $$.
>
> I believe that coordinated  efforts  from  academic  listowners  may
> bring  about positive changes.  I am sure that "positive engagement"
> will be  good  to  all  parties  -since  .COM  access  will increase
> exponentially during coming years and whether we  like  it  or  not,
> academic conferences will be affected by this.
 
  Yes....if you can coordinate with .COM networks and get them to
include a Code of Ethics which addresses spams.  If you can't, what
other alternative is there?  I can get my own .COM addr and be both
postmaster and user and spam your list to death.  This is also the
future that we have seen a glimpse of on this list.
 
> ]I really don't have the answers, which is why I posted here.
>
> Nor  do I and I would like to know what Senior managers like Thomas,
> Klassen and others think about this.  I am sure their expertise will
> give further insight into these issues.
 
  Well, we have seen Eric's post, and there is usually wisdom in his
words, so I read it over and over even though I thought it not at all
related to this issue.  Then it hit me.  He asked for 'patience'.
This struck me as interesting because at our site, listowners are
new to the business of listownership...but not to e-mail.  While
what he says is true, there is another element I hadn't noticed before.
For example, the request to server off a network....the members of the
list sending mail blaming the listowner for the spam...many signing
off until security could be better, etc.  All of this reflects a
lack of patience with a post to "Get Rich Quick".  Yes, there is the
delete key, the old-timers would have you hit it and forget it, but
these list members take it personally.  They are not impatient
Canadians, but from countries all over the world and they want action.
 
  I think the lists are becoming more like your personal phone at home
where you get impatient with calls like "We have a special on carpet
cleaning for $$"....or junk mail, where you send back the return
envelope empty, but the Co has to pay the postage because it was
used.  Perhaps this is a trend, and with increased spams I've seen
discussed here...subscribers are demanding action and the listowner
reacts in kind...assumes the responsibility, and requests a network
to be banned.  This may be the future until they get heavily into
the list-running business as Eric suggests.  The answer perhaps lies
in a balance of Eric continuing to modify his code to detect spams
and us putting pressure on commercial networks to include spams
and inappropriate posts to academic lists in some form of a Code.
 
  For those of you who may be interested, I sent a note to the list
and listowner, stating the reason for not banning the network and quoting
Aldo-Pier that perhaps a network ban might prevent the many academics
from subscribing to the list and contributing.  One list member posted
an apology from the spammer (I filtered him but forgot to delete him
from the list...ooops!) and I think everyone is happy.  So, the list
goes on much like this one; you get your frustrations out by the
many postings of "I got hit too!"...and nothing changes in the end. :-)
Now if everyone shared Dave's convictions, we wouldn't have a spammer left
to give us something to talk about.  If it were up to me alone, and
postmasters are never alone, I'd serve off AOL at the first spam until
they could control their users.  Yes, the spammer was from AOL, and still
no rely from the postmaster except his/her vacation msg....and the user
still has his account.  Although I noticed other userids from AOL
attempting to subscribe, and I filtered those hoping to get some
reaction...nothing.
 
  Thank you all for your interesting comments.
 
--Trish