🚀 go-pugleaf

[ This a followup to many identical (yet un-crossposted) articles in 
  a wide range of newsgroups.  I've tried to identify them all and
  to redirect followups to austin.internet.  --Fletcher ]

In article <45efns$p1h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Cyronwode <cyronwode@aol.com> wrote:

> Excuse me? You have blocked your PUBLIC gateway to AOL users?

Catherine, I suspect the above misunderstanding lies at the heart
of your post.  If so, let me make this real clear from the start:
Our mail-to-news gateway is not PUBLIC (or even public).  It never has
been and never will be.

I designed it many years ago at the request of our local user community.
Some of them preferred an email interface to USENET because they felt the
traditional UNIX news posters were awkward.  At the time, it seemed like
a useful hack so I provided it.

However, the software had no access control; anyone with email
connectivity could use it.  Over the years knowledge of our gateway
spread slowly around the network.  This was mostly by word of mouth.
More recently it has been accelerated by (unsolicited and unauthorised)
references in books, mailing lists, and on USENET itself.  When people
asked me if they could use it (back in the old days, folks were polite
about using resources which did not belong to them), I agreed.  We had
the resources so why not share?  My only condition: don't do anything
that would embarrass the University of Texas.

The point is: I have never, ever, advertised this gateway in a public
forum.  This is not a public gateway, even if some of the public thinks
it is.  If you feel that AOL (or any random organisation) has the *right*
to use our computing facilities, then you are mistaken.

>The real point is this: as a public institution, supported by tax-payers'
>(local, state and federal) money, you are telling me that you are unfairly
>and without forewarning discriminating against portions of the public
>simply because of the name of their carrier, 

With regard to why aol.com is blocked, the straw that finally broke this
camel's back was a particularly aggressive spam of over 1000 newsgroups
from an AOL address which brought our gateway to its knees last February.
(Not to mention my mailbox which had overflowed with messages from very
angry USENETers.)  When I complained to the AOL administrators, they
agreed I should block all future posts from AOL.  In fact, if memory
serves me, *they* requested the action.  Even if they hadn't, I would
have done it anyway.  Moreover, I reserve the right to block anyone from
using our gateway if I think it will reflect poorly on the University or
the Department of Computer Sciences.  This policy has the full support
of the Department and will not change.  Sorry.

>WITHOUT TELLING THEM SO,  and
>without allowing them to protest this unannounced practice in any way. 

Hm. You seem to have found a way to protest this unannounced practice.  :-)

More seriously, I agree that this is a little rude.  I don't like
doing it.  Maybe I can find some time to change its behaviour in
the future, but that approach is not without problems too.
(Did I mention this was unsupported software?)

On the other hand, when you inquired about your "lost" posts, I
answered your query honestly, quickly, and politely.  I even suggested
an alternative.  I assume you haven't forgotten that--after all you posted
my email all over USENET.

By the way, our gateway averages about ten posts per day from AOL addresses.
(And several hundred on spam days.)  They are all dropped on the floor.
This has been going on since last February when I blocked AOL.  How many
inquiries have I received about "lost" posts over this time period?  
Exactly two.  Yours was the second.  I find this amazing.  It's all
junk mail to most AOLers--no one cares enough to inquire.  They just keep
sending mail into a black hole, perhaps with the eventual expectation
that it will magicly start working. 

> ... you are about four months behind the times as far as
>AOL being the domain from which most spam and forgeries are currently
>sent;

I agree with you (in part) here, too.  AOL administrators have become
much more responsive to USENET abuse than they were a year or so ago.
I'm *very* grateful for that.  In fact, I probably would have lifted
the block on AOL if you had asked nicely rather than attempting to bully
and intimidate me.

Fletcher