🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <19971111005453246268@gbyshenk.tezcat.com>,
gbyshenk@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) carved on the cave wall:
>Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie <rlindber@telebyte.com> wrote:
>> gbyshenk@tezcat.com (gregory byshenk) wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>>   NO FOCA complaint is that Altopia (CC) is not -telling- what he is or is
>> not doing.  CC doesn't tell much of about what he does to stop abuse,  out
>> of respect for the privacy of his subscribers. Also, as long as the abuse
>> is stopped, because it's -none- of FOCA's business what he did.
>
>Perhaps I've read things incorrectly, but I seem to recall
>FOCA's complaint being that Altopia a) wouldn't stop abuse,
>and b) wouldn't provide _any_ info about the source of the
>abuse.
>
>IOW, people are causing trouble and the provider appears to
>appear do nothing about it.

This was, in fact, my point (that Altopia won't stop net.abuse--and
the path-forgeries in a number of those posts ARE considered net.abuse--
and that they provide *no* info about the source of abuse.)

>> >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.
>
>>   Please see Chris Lewis's posts on this, you will note he has a
>> -completely- different take on Altopia.  In general (other then the kooks)
>> I find few people disagree with Chris Lewis about if a service actually
>> needs a UDP or not, while a lot appear to disagree with FOCA.
>
>I've read them, and calling them "a -completely- different take"
>(with emphasis on the "completely", no less) is something of a
>stretch.  "There's nothing wrong with Altopia" is "a completely
>different take"; "there are some real problems, but they aren't
>yet so extreme as to merit a UDP" is not.

Oddly, that's what I'm getting, too.  Not so much "You're screwed in the
head" (save for maybe one or two posters)--mostly it's "I'm not ready to
say they should be UDP'd, but they *do* have some serious problems that
they really do need to take care of".

I may well have been a bit premature in calling for UDP.  That does NOT
mean that Altopia doesn't need--IMHO and in the opinion of others--to
seriously review its net.abuse policies in general and its policies in
regards to identifying the sources of postings in particular.

(Just FWIW and all--UUnet does not identify the users of its POPs either,
and there are reams of spam coming from them.  UUnet's failure to deal
with their problem in a timely manner led directly to a call for UDP
against them--which was my parallel in calling for it on Altopia.  As I've
stated before, Altopia isn't an anonymous posting service.  Just as UUnet
isn't, either.

(I should note that UUnet's problems with their POPs are, in a way, a
scaled up version of what myself and others have experienced in complaints
about net.abuse from Altopia--no response whatsoever in regards to
complaints about net.abuse.  In both cases, it is impossible to tell the
home ISP of the abusive site without contacting UUnet (or Altopia).

(In the case of net.abuse, it is important to be able to trace where abuse
is coming from--especially in cases where the abuser is outright forging
addresses or Paths to appear to be coming from valid sites (as "Mahmoud"
and the "meowbot" were doing).  Hence, not providing info determining
where the abuse is coming from--when the site is the *only* source for
it--helps a net.abuser.)

- -- 
- -Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency! Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund 
<http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm> * Boycott Internet 
Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net/spam> * Ban Spam Now! <http://www.cauce.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850

iQCVAwUBNGpVaj0Jz30h6bOhAQF4CQP/Rvv9ngtkQhEczGPqIYDmi6MmDNGlRk4R
WswtXFwaYkMXdkSJcC57zoWRA/Ra97zPN4oC5DG8UyvHyuF67/Bbc62P/FG5QsuY
QK2+zQT2MLwiYPezYaPxITDwoePT6N8AKAK9GG0DdEUx18OIyaD+VyofMyhj0wPc
o0mtL6FTp2o=
=YFQ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----