🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <p9jprrr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith) writes:
>
>>[BTW: I didn't get the junk mail, didn't send anything to the idiots
>>who sent it out, and think the folks who sold them network services
>>should have ensured they knew what the net _was_ before taking their
>>money.]
>
>And whose version of "what the network is" would you like presented?
>I daresay my opinions of "what the net is" varies just about 180 
>degrees from the whiners who have posted in this thread.  I fully 
>support the commercialization of the net (note the present tense.)  
>I believe the responsibility for filtering "illegal" traffic lies with those 
>who declare it illegal.  I realize that network users who have to live with 
>some kind of AUP are responsible for meeting those obligations and not the 
>rest of the net.  I believe that pretty much anything not illegal is 
>permissible, at least until asked not to do so by an individual and then only
>relative to that individual.  I believe the rules of net.conduct should
>NOT be set by mob rule of a few loudmouths.
>
>The above is the view of the net my paying customers receive.  You or someone
>else might not like it and may disagree with it but you can't do anything
>about it.  That's just the way the net is.

Well, I believe I find myself agreeing with John here...

The network we're connected to here at work (Alternet) SPECIFICALLY permits
commercial conduct.  Moreover, they give you pretty free reign with the pipe
you buy -- whether UUCP or IP.  This is as it should be, IMHO -- if you wish
to pass on or share your pipe some how, you should be able to do so without 
restraint.  You're paying for the capacity you have available (not all of
which is always used).  In the case of UUCP connections you're paying for
actual use; in the case of IP connections you're paying for POTENTIAL use
(i.e. a 56kb pipe costs $x, and can pass only 56kbps of data).

This is NOT how some providers work.  Not all of them have a R&E AUP - some
have an even MORE restrictive AUP than the NSF -- even some who are 
commercial.  Some providers explicitly forbid third-party traffic, as an 
example.

However, if a network wishes to filter traffic based on some AUP, it is
THEIR responsibility to do so.  NOT the originator -- as long as the point
of origin and the network they connect to says their conduct is "ok".
Therefore, since I am in the US, in Illinois, the material I post to the net 
or send via it must comply with Illinois state and US Federal law.  If it
violates Australian or UK law that isn't my issue to be concerned with.

Lets take a print analogy.  PLAYBOY is a legitimate magazine in the US.  It
is banned in some Middle-Eastern countries as it displays things which fall
outside their social "AUP".  PLAYBOY is not enjoined from PUBLISHING, or even
SENDING the material to those addresses.  However, it may be intercepted,
and the intended RECIPIENT may be charged with a crime.  Should a copy be
sent to a "restricted" address PLAYBOY is guilty of no offense -- but the
recipient MAY be guilty.

So be it with the networks, IMHO.  If your network doesn't want some form of
traffic, figure out a way to filter it out and either bounce it back to the
sender or ditch it entirely.  I will note that it is almost certainly NOT in
your best interest to do this -- if you fragment yourself from others you
provide a poorer service to those who connect to and with you, and
eventually if that situation persists your customers will either find
another provider (if they can) or will be at an extreme competitive
disadvantage.  Such is the realm of reality.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022