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