🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Ashley <scotta@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:58:25 -0600, Edward Franks wrote:

> I'm against abuse, but draw the line at
> a UDP of an entire domain because a few are causing trouble.  It would
> be nice to see a public statement from Altopia.  I don't imagine it
> will happen though.

But if I'm reading this correctly, any call for a UDP is not
due _only_ to a few users causing trouble.  Rather, it is due
to some number of users causing trouble, and the provider in
question doing nothing about it.

A provider that allows abuse is more or less the definition
of "rogue", after all.


Note that I am not here claiming that Altopia _is_ rogue, only
that the argument presented in its defense is a poor one.


> >     Hopefully, any _real_ abusers will be stopped, as well as stopping
> >anyone with an axe to grind about Altopia because of its different 
> >philosophy in doing business.

> I sincerely hope so too, but fear the latter will remain a big issue.

Very likely.  And if Altopia refuses to recognize as abusive 
what everyone else on the net considers to be abuse, then they
will continue to have problems as people decide that putting
up with what Altopia considers acceptable is not worth the
trouble.

Recall that Agis dealt with abuse, but just didn't consider
UBE "abuse" if it was sent through the IEMMC.  Yes, this is
in the realm of email rather than usenet, but the principle
is the same.  You may not consider it abusive for your children
to paint pictures on your living room walls... but those who
don't agree are unlikely to invite you and your children into
their homes. 


-- 
+ gregory byshenk  -  gbyshenk@tezcat.com  -  gbyshenk@prairienet.org +
     == Help take a byte out of spam:  <http://www.cauce.org> ==
=> Now up:  "Help! I've Been Spammed! - A guide for the beginner."
     URL:  <http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html>