brode@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jon Brode) (02/13/91)
This is a re-post with clarifications of my original article "Bye Bye BART". The original has been cancelled. The BART mail server is no longer available at atari.archive.umich.edu. My understanding is that it is down for good, but I haven't had an opportunity to really discuss it with the system administrator yet. Perhaps he will permit it back with some additional patches to the quota system. I don't know. As for Herr Kaiser, he is directly responsible for the server being shut down, but my characterizations of his actions as malicious were pre-mature. Due to some unusual circumstances, some of which were very clearly explicated by Brain Reid, it appears that I misjudged him initially. I have received several messages from Hans apologizing for the trouble he caused and some messages from his administrators backing him up. I apoligize for the harsh words, it appears most of them were unjustified. At this point, I don't know whether I believe his innocence or not. Even taking the unusual circumstances into account, he was still using the archive beyond the posted limits. However, I'm not in a position where I'm able to ascertain his innocence or guilt so I will no longer pursue it. Please stop sending him mail. Below is my response to Brian Reid's article for those who are interested. Jon Brode -- jon@atari.archive.umich.edu brode@math.lsa.umich.edu University of Michigan, Atari archive manager In article <1991Feb12.165927.21941@pa.dec.com> reid@wrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes: >There is a "per-user" quota for each day. The problem is that when you send >the mail using a mail program that encodes the date and time of the message >in the "From" field, then every message looks like it came from a different >user. Exactly. We knew the quota system was unsohpisticated, but it should have been sufficient to keep the average user in check. The problem of keeping a hacker from abusing a totally automatic mail archive server is very difficult, and perhaps impossible to solve for now. >As a result, the Michigan archive server tried to process all of them >at once, and, evidently, melted into a pile of slag. Actually, we received them over the course of 4 days so it seemed like he was sending them interactively. I probably would have been suspicious of mail problems if all 93 messages has shown up within minutes of each other. >I will happily offer the services of the excellent network >programmers at DEC Western Research to help ensure that the Michigan archive >server does not meet this fate again. Most appreciated. Perhaps you can share with me your thoughts on parsing incoming From: lines so that everyone has to play by the rules. >Mostly I want people to know that this was in no way the fault of Hans Kaiser. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but my initial posting about the extent and intent of the archive abuse were definitely in error. >If you have sent Mr. Kaiser (or Herr Kaiser, as he probably prefers to be >called) a nasty message, it might be civil to send him another one letting >him know that, now that the facts are known, you aren't so angry any more. I concur.
silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb12.181433.3661@math.lsa.umich.edu> brode@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jon Brode) writes: >This is a re-post with clarifications of my original article "Bye Bye BART". >At this point, I don't know whether I believe his innocence or not. Even >taking the unusual circumstances into account, he was still using the >archive beyond the posted limits. However, I'm not in a position where >I'm able to ascertain his innocence or guilt so I will no longer pursue it. I think that between his responses and Brian Reid's posting it seems pretty unlikely that any malice was intended. Of course you are upset at losing your server -- we all are -- but having used VAXmail I can vouch for the plausibility of Kaiser's and Reid's explanations. Your accusations have caused a lot of grief for Kaiser and DEC, and your waffling about whether to accept their explanations is rubbing salt in a wound that seems to have suffered enough. >Please stop sending him mail. I concur. When I read your original posting I forwarded it to him with the header "Is this true?" and I received a gracious reply and copies of subsequent correspondence. My conclusion is that Herr Kaiser did not act with malice, and that he was not even overly negligent (a real guru might have avoided the problem, but it does not appear to be a really slovenly mistake). Right now the problem is overly strict system administration at your end. Bill -- William Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division, Bedford Inst. of Oceanography P. O. Box 1006, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CANADA B2Y 4A2. Tel. (902)426-1577 UUCP=..!{uunet|watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill BITNET=bill%biomel%dalcs@dalac InterNet=bill%biomel@cs.dal.ca
brode@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jon Brode) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb14.011146.29931@cs.dal.ca> bill%biomel@cs.dal.ca writes: >Your accusations have caused a lot of grief for Kaiser and DEC, and your >waffling about whether to accept their explanations is rubbing salt in a >wound that seems to have suffered enough. I accept Brian Reid's technical explanation without question. The only thing I had my doubts about was Herr Kaiser's complete innocence. I am not of the opinion that the technical difficulties excuse all of his actions. However, my remaining doubts about Herr Kaiser are not worth pursuing. Besides, if you want to talk about rubbing salt in old wounds, why did you post this after I told you that Hans and I have worked out our differences? >My conclusion is that Herr Kaiser did not act with malice, and that he >was not even overly negligent (a real guru might have avoided the problem, >but it does not appear to be a really slovenly mistake). So you're saying that it takes a guru to figure out that if you don't get a response from the first 45 messages, you probably won't get a response from the next 45? Now reconcile that with the posted archive limit of 5 requests per day. >Right now the problem is overly strict system administration at your end. Not at all, we are a guest on that machine. We can use it as long as we don't cause trouble. People use that machine to get work done. The archive is just a public service, the University doesn't even support Atari machines. (major m*c site) Anyway, things are looking better in this regard as well. It appears that the sys-admin's intention is to keep us down until we can come up with a technical solution to the basic problem that's at the heart of the matter: a weak quota system. The difficulty is that coming up with a bullet-proof quota system is an insoluable problem at present. The trick is convincing the sys-admin to let us go back up with a partial solution. I think I can swing that, he's a reasonable guy. Jon