dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (04/26/86)
In article <735@mmm.UUCP> bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > > The sysop who originally spurred this conversation argued that he >wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a >justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he >be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of >arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays >his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has >a right to know. Actually, on many systems, you can tell where your mail traffic is coming from and going to by examining various log files - sendmail can be set up to log messages via syslog if you are running it, and any UUCP system I've seen logs its uuxqt's. By looking at such information, you can gather information about whose mail you are handling and how much of it, without ever looking at the contents of the letters. Since this is analogous to post office workers looking at the destination and return addresses on an envelope, I doubt if anyone would object to the gathering of that sort of information. Also, comments have been made to the effect that "anyone who routes mail through me deserves to have it looked at". In fact, a great deal of mail routing is done by computer programs routing mail via the "shortest path" according to information provided by system managers themselves. If you indicated that your machine has high-quality connections to many others, you can expect a lot of mail traffic flowing through you, much of which was *not* explicitly routed through you - in effect, you invited it. If you really do not want to handle mail from third-party sites, simply don't advertise your uucp connections, and request that your uucp neighbours also not advertize their connections to you. You'll get very little mail forwarded through you. If you take such steps to avoid inviting mail, and then get something routed through you, maybe the "they deserve what they get" attitude is appropriate. Dave Martindale
gam@amdahl.UUCP (04/29/86)
Dave's was the best article I've seen so far on how to handle this mail
privacy issue. If a site must go so far as to exampine what is sent
thru them -- why do they advertise their sites, then, as mail
couriers? If they don't want the traffic, or don't care to uphold
conventions of privacy, why advertise?
It is not unusual for some sites to simply not advertise all their UUCP
links in the maps -- or mention only one. They get very little traffic
flowing thru them, and pathalias(1) may as well think it is DEAD.
If SAs feel *burdened* by the traffic thru their systems, they should
discourage it, rather than police it to such degrees as we have heard
here.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
Everything you know is wrong.
--
[ This does not represent Amdahl Corporation ]joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (04/29/86)
I've tried to stay out of this, but will add my two cents worth.
Any SA will and should read headers and signatures routinely. There
are some perverse paths and flakey connections out there, and that's
the only way to understand what's going on and why.
But I no more want to read other people's mail than I want to peek
at the lady's room in a rest home.
--
Joel West (619) 457-9681
CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037
{cbosgd, ihnp4, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
{seismo!s3sun, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun!pyramid} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA