mouse@SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (06/06/90)
> The problem is the absolute complete and total lack of any sort of > security, trackability, or accountability in the netnews system that > runs on usenet (uucp) and over nntp. The problem is that most of the > Internet mailing lists have been "gatewayed" to netnews mailgroups. Not really. I could generate a letter here which appeared to come from anyone I chose; the same lack of accountability has always existed on the Internet too. I think the reason the Internet hasn't suffered as much is threefold: (a) it's somewhat more difficult to fake stuff on the Internet, (b) it's less like the "bulletin board" atmosphere that seems to breed twits like BIFF than usenet is, and (c) it costs more to connect to the Internet (IMO this is probably the strongest of the three). > I'd rather the "gateways" be made one way (out from Internet only), > or even non-existent. About all I can say is, start your own mailing list. If enough people agree with you, it'll catch on. (If nobody agrees with you, there's not much chance of getting your way in any event.) > (One could argue that those "gateways" violate the access rules for > the Internet, since they cannot verify that the message came from an > authorized user of the Internet.) You mean there *are* access rules for the modern Internet? This sounds suspiciously as though you're thinking of the DARPA rules, which (it seems to me) don't really apply, with the demise of the ARPAnet core. > I realize that this would deny netnews/uucp only sites access to the > Internet mailing lists, but if their umbrella organization (usenet) > cannot maintain professional standards of behavior, then that is > their loss. By implementing a system without accountability, they > create that risk. There is no umbrella organization to usenet. (This is at once one of its great weaknesses and one of its great strengths.) I wouldn't worry about denying them access; most to all Internet mailing lists are perfectly happy to subscribe addresses which happen to be on uucp-only machines - I read sf-lovers that way myself for a while, back when I had no other way. > Another problem due to "gatewaying" has been consistent recurring > problems with mail loops through netnews. And I've seen plenty of mail white-holes on the Internet. Proves nothing. > I (and others) would welcome netnews being made properly accountable > and secure. However, not building the Received: lines may make > netnews more efficient, but this removes all vestiges of > accountability. This is a key problem. Again, I can't say much but "if you find the game unacceptable then don't play". If you find netnews unacceptable, don't use it. If you can't stand the gatewaying of netnews into (say) the tcp-ip list, then unsubscribe. "But there's all that useful information!" Yes. But it amounts to saying that there's useful information in a forum you find intolerable, and all I can say is "too bad".... der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
kmeyer@pollux.usc.edu (Kraig Meyer) (06/08/90)
In some article someone wrote: ||> (One could argue that those "gateways" violate the access rules for ||> the Internet, since they cannot verify that the message came from an ||> authorized user of the Internet.) In article <9006060613.AA00673@shamash.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) writes: ||You mean there *are* access rules for the modern Internet? This sounds ||suspiciously as though you're thinking of the DARPA rules, which (it ||seems to me) don't really apply, with the demise of the ARPAnet core. Most, if not all, of the regional networks attached to the NSFnet backbone have appropriate usage guidelines. Traffic which is solely for commercial purposes is prohibited from traversing the NSFNet backbone--there are most definitely rules which govern Internet access. However, in the case of gatewaying the tcp-ip mailing list to and from usenet I think it could very easily be argued that this fits appropriate usage guidelines. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Kraig R. Meyer kraig@jerico.usc.edu | | University of Southern California Los Angeles | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
escher@Apple.COM (Michael Crawford) (06/14/90)
In article <25174@usc.edu> kmeyer@pollus.usc.edu writes: > >Most, if not all, of the regional networks attached to the NSFnet backbone >have appropriate usage guidelines. Traffic which is solely for commercial >purposes is prohibited from traversing the NSFNet backbone--there are most >definitely rules which govern Internet access. However, in the case of I am curious how a commercial UUCP site would post to misc.jobs.offered, and guarantee that their ad did not traverse the backbone. Suppose their upstream site was on UUCP, and so on for a few hops, and all these commercial companies provide each other UUCP for commercial purposes. It seems to me that it is absurd for a company to have to consider what political requirements a distant network layer might have when posting to the news. Or consider this: suppose a company has a network that links itself and its clients. Suppose the company and the client each have an internet connection, but the shortest-hop is to go over the internal network. It is perfectly legitimate in this case that the company should bill its client via SMTP mail. Suppose the regional or the NSF backbone now installed a router that made the hop count from accounts receivable to the client's account payable office shorter than the hop count on the internal network. Current protocols will shortly send all the bills over the NSF backbone. I am not advocating that the NSF or the regionals should provide free communications services to companies, but really, there should be some realistic thought on this. Perhaps one could set a bit in the IP header that says this packet is not "Used Appropriately", and NSF routers could drop such packets. (Just kidding). What would be more reasonable is for the companies to pay for the usage they actually incur on the net, in some manner that is simple and manageable. -- Michael D. Crawford Oddball Enterprises Consulting for Apple Computer Inc. 606 Modesto Avenue escher@apple.com Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Applelink: escher@apple.com@INTERNET# oddball!mike@ucscc.ucsc.edu The opinions expressed here are solely my own. alias make '/bin/make & rn'