🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: bit.listserv.relusr-l
Article #420

Re: Banning nodes...

#420
From: Dave Phillips
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 13:20
32 lines
2760 bytes
Ofer,
 My suggestion was made in the same vein as Jonathan Swift's much earlier
"Modest Proposal" concerning British-Irish relations. I understand the 
problems and was having some fun with the obviously-unworkable suggestion.
I certainly wasn't proposing a side peace process to the main one 
underway, nor was I trying to make more work for you :) 
 Seriously, however, most users still don't understand how tenuous Relay
is at some sites, that node admins may pull Relay access from their students,
and sometimes even restrict network access entirely.  More and more nodes 
are leaving BITNET and hence users at those nodes are unable to access any
Relay (although they often can get onto Internet Relay Chat).
 On sites that maintain their Bitnet connections, Relay is viewed by admins
as either a positive thing (rare) or a harmless one (more likely).  Once a 
node that hosts a relay decides that Relay is not worth the resources it
consumes (often modest as they are), the plug is pulled.
 As former masterop at Buffalo's Relay, I ran the relay for a student club
which had responsibility for student self-management of all vax games and
similar software on campus. We had no official standing, and Relay
has been tolerated here since Bill Palter (Zev) set it up quite some time
ago. When we ran into problems with substantial account sharing, bad 
registrations, and other abuse, we locked users. When a node's share of 
locked users exceeded a reasonable level *and* if we could not find someone
with standing at that node with whom we could work to resolve problems,
we disabled service to that node. This was done to allow other nodes, 
with better willingness to cooperate and keep their students' access,
more access to the limited number of slots on our relay. 
 Dropping service to nodes should be a last resort, but individuals at those
nodes should realize that to keep access to relay a node should not only
have a reasonable percentage of responsible users but an administrator who
can work with relay masterops to settle cases of abusive behavior.
 -dave phillips
 
Technical Details
Message-ID: <CDnMDo.Htx@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!davep
References: <RELUSR-L%93091911424218@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10771c,b0bf125064f443b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid10771c,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-09-20 06:24:24 PST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.relusr-l
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!davep
From: davep@acsu.buffalo.edu (Dave Phillips)
Subject: Re: Banning nodes...
Message-ID: <CDnMDo.Htx@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: autarch-14.acsu.buffalo.edu
Organization: UB
References: <RELUSR-L%93091911424218@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 13:20:11 GMT
Lines: 32