🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bvz690.2L3@portal.hq.videocart.com>, kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
|> In article <p9jprrr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> >wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith) writes:
	...
|> >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 
	...
|> >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
	...
|> 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

Two points to consider:

1) When an organization connects to NSFNET, it agrees to be
responsible for refraining from sending non-acceptable traffic to
NSFNET.  It is up to this orgranization to determine how to fulfull
this obligation.  If the organization is a common carrier or other
commerical organization, one way of fulfilling this obligation would
be to educate all of its customers about the restriction.

Not that this is a contractual agreement (although presumably a
non-negotiable one (:-)) in which the organization agrees to use the
NSF's definition of what is not allowed.  Commercial organizations
should fully understand the importance of living up to contracts.

2) In general, it is not possible to examine a particular piece of
traffic and determine >from it alone< whether it meets AUP needs.  You
must understand who sent it, who received it, and what it is for.
This is why NSF has chosen (well, been forced to) to require the
orginiator to take responsibility.

Craig A. Finseth			fin@unet.umn.edu [CAF13]
Networking Services			+1 612 624 3375 desk
Computer and Information Services	+1 612 625 0006 problems
University of Minnesota			+1 612 626 1002 fax
130 Lind Hall, 207 Church St SE
Minneapolis MN 55455-0134, USA