info-cpm (12/22/82)
>From mike@BRL Tue Dec 21 20:43:30 1982 To: pourne@Mit-Mc, anton.Hcr@BRL, info-cpm@BRL Cc: Gurus@BRL Via: Brl-Bmd; 20 Dec 82 17:22-EST Via: Brl; 20 Dec 82 17:46-EST Via: Brl-Bmd; 20 Dec 82 17:52-EST "The ARPANET is an operational DoD network and is not intended to compete with comparable commercial service. Accordingly, before ARPANET service is provided to any non-U.S. Government activity, it must be determined that adequate comercial service is not available." "The ARPANET is intended to be used solely for the conduct of or in support of official U.S. Government business. ...use of the ARPANET must not violate any applicable privacy laws." [pg. 12, ARPANET Directory] "If it is possible to gain access to the ARPANET from another network (gateway) ..., it is the respnosibility of that host to provide software protection which will permit only authorized ARPANET users to access the network." [pg 18, ARPANET Directory] The only reason we are able to provide any kind of relaying service AT ALL is because of a ambiuity of wording in the regulations governing the use of the ArpaNet. Basically, they say that outside users can not ORIGINATE traffic on the net, but say nothing about outsiders getting COPIES of things sent on the net. So, our mail gateway software implements this policy, with one special case. It works like this: *) Mail sent from ARPANET to any of our other networks is passed. *) Mail sent from any other network to ARPANET is rejected, with explanation. *) Mail sent from any other network to a MAIL FORWARDER on our machine is DELIVERED, regardless as to where it forwards to. Hence, mailing to ...!brl-bmd!info-cpm@mit-ai is rejected, as it asks for explicit routing to ARPANET, where as ...!brl-bmd!info-cpm is DELIVERED, because we automatically forward mail for that list. Believe me, I wish this was not so, but we have to play by the rules. Otherwise... "If corrective action is not taken in a reasonable time, DCA reserves the right to disconnect the host/terminal from the network." [pg 14, ARPANET Directory] If you wish to further discuss this issue, the proper forum is in the TCP-IP Digest ("The InterNet Digest"). It is fed into NETNEWS as net.tcp-ip; ArpaNet viewers may request direct mailing by sending a request to TCP-IP-REQUEST @ BRL Letters for publication in the digest should be sent to TCP-IP @ BRL Network Liaison and Host Administrator of BRL-BMD, -Mike Muuss PS: Attached is an automatic rejection notice, and a letter on this subject. ----- Forwarded message # 1: Date: 18 Dec 1982 22:13-EST (Sat) From: Memo Service (MMDF) <mmdf@BRL-BMD> To: anton@hcr Cc: Gurus@Brl-Bmd Subject: Illegal Address (pourne@mit-mc) Via: (decvax); 18 Dec 82 22:14-EST Your letter has been intercepted trying to access a restricted access host (e.g. an ARPANET host). A copy of your letter has been sent to the system administrators. The text of your letter follows. --------------- Returned Mail Follows -------------- >From hcr!anton Fri Dec 17 11:47:45 1982 remote from decvax Date: Fri Dec 17 11:01:15 1982 To: decvax!brl-bmd!pourne@mit-mc, info-cpm@BRL Subject: somebody gotta DO something Cc: rrg, utcsrgv!utcsstat!geoff, utzoo!henry I have just got a nasty letter from an automatic mailer telling me I have been reported for attempting to breach the security system of ARPAnet. All I did was reply to dave Flystra's note about sending all new members of the info-cpm list a idots guide to things like being taken off the list. I very much resent being accused of trying to break a secure system when all I did was use the unix mailer's 'r' command. Yes, Jerry, this junk about routing is getting pernicious. IT MUST BE STOPPED. Abouyt 30% of my network replies are getting sent back now. The only simple way out seems to be have ARPA and usenet seperate and have all of usenet that relays news FORCED to relay mail. System administrators won't like that, so we will probably need intelligent mailers, which means everyone has to keep their tables up to date. Sigh ! /anton aylward Human Computing Resources. Toronto. (p.s. I hope this DOES get through....) --------------- End of Returned Mail --------------- ----- End of forwarded messages
info-cpm (12/23/82)
>From W8SDZ@Mit-Mc Thu Dec 23 12:51:45 1982
To: mike@BRL
Cc: POURNE@Mit-Mc, anton.Hcr@BRL, Gurus@BRL, Info-Cpm@BRL
In-Reply-To: The message of 21 Dec 1982 19:31-EST from EB
Via: Mit-Mc; 23 Dec 82 5:37-EST
Via: Brl; 23 Dec 82 5:53-EST
Via: Brl-Bmd; 23 Dec 82 6:02-EST
If what you say is true then why are CSNET people allowed to send and
receive mail to Arpanet? It seems to me that Arpa has benefited
GREATLY from information supplied by non-Arpa people through these
gateways. Someone needs to re-examine the "official position". That
automatic gateway rejection shouldn't be there. It's not on UCB-C70.
It seems to me that this is one person's interpretation of the
regulations. If you want to take them seriously, then shut down the
UCB-C70 and CSNET gateways. But if you do, you'll shut off a valuable
resource. I don't think the management would appreciate that at all.