pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/17/90)
On 7 Dec 90 15:07:00 GMT, GD.WHY@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU (Bill Yundt) said:
WHY> I further remind all users of this mail list that it and
WHY> the Internet access to it are intended for support of
WHY> research and education and not purely commercial interests
WHY> of the kind Mr. Booth is pursuing.
Are you sure he was addressing the mailing list and not just the USENET
newsgroup? The kind of query he makes is entirely within the accepted
norms of behaviour for a USENET poster.
There is a large number of equivalent articles in USENET, and so long as
they have some interest for a wider readership (and surely the issue of
KA9Q's copyright status is of interest to many) or they are small, they
are within the bounds of accepted USENET practice.
WHY> I believe his use of USENET-to-Internet mail for this purpose to be
WHY> a violation of the Interim NSFNET use rules and am forwarding his
WHY> communication and this note to NSF authorities for their
WHY> information.
Indeed any _site_ that redistributed this article on NSFNET lines is in
violation of NSFNET rules, and a complaint should be lodged with their
system administrators. The person involved is posting, I seem to
understand, on a private system, and has no control on the transport
resources chosen by gateways for distributing its postings.
The Path:
Path: aber-cs!gdt!dcl-cs!ukc!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi
!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur
!nntp-server.caltech.edu!quotron.com!todd
tells us that it is Caltech that started the chain of violations of the
NSFNET rules by not screening all communications passing thru them to
reject those without education or research content. I would send a
complaint to NSFNET about Caltech's (and subsequent nodes) gross
disregard of the NSFNET rules, not about Mr. Booth's adherence to
USENET rules, as you well say in:
WHY> Those supplying mail-forwarding for this class of traffic are, in
WHY> my opinion, in technical if not substantive violation of the
WHY> applicable use rules.
Ah yes, definitely yes. It is probably a duty of sites connected to the
NSFNET to screen all mail and NNTP traffic passing thru them for the
purpose of rejecting any traffic in substantive violation of the NSFNET
guidelines, and the NSF should start immediately an investigation in the
gross waste of federal money involved if this is not done.
If I were in the USA, conforted by your opinion that *forwarding* the
posting you refer to is technically in violation of the NSFNET rules,
and that it has not been dropped by all the intermediate sites that have
used federal funds to propagate it, and that probably none of them does
it, I would write to my Representative Probably this abuse of federal
funds. NSFNET sites that do not screen mail and news passing thru them
and instead forward everything on NSF funded channels probably cost a
large amount of money every year to the taxpayer.
WHY> Bill Yundt
WHY> Executive Director, Bay Area Regional Research Network
WHY> Board Member, Federation of American Research Networks
WHY> Director, Networking and Communication Systems, Stanford University
Ah, just a curiosity, inquiring minds want to know. Are you *absolutely*
sure that none of the Professors at Stanford uses NSFNET bandwidth to
send or receive e-mail connect to private consultancies and similar
purely commercial initiatives?
I am sure that they are very careful about not making use of federally
funded research resources for private gain in general. I am ready to
agree that it is an internal matter for Stanford University to decide
whether or not to screen all traffic originating from their Professors
for possible violations of the NSFNET rules, or to rely on their
unquestioned integrity instead.
But maybe, a mere formality, of course, the NSF should insist (after all
it is federal money -- the Secret Service, or the GAO may well become
interested :->) instead on some auditing of the use of the NSFNET
bandwidth, to make it clear that the traditional University practice
that a certain amount of exploitation of University resources for
private purposes, including for profit ones, is permissible, does not
extend by default to NSFSNET resources, to which different and much
stricter rules apply.
For example, a Professor consulting and contacting his clients by e-mail
from his University workstation, as it may well happen technically, may
(I don't know really, I admit) be in this authorized by the University.
But the University probably must then find alternate non NSFNET funded
tranport channels for such e-mail, e.g. by using UUCP mail on
commercial phone lines instead of SMTP mail over NSF funded TCP/IP
connections.
In other words, if the University (as I assume) allows staff (limited)
use of its facilities for personal or for profit purposes, it must pay
for this out of its own funds, not offload the expense onto federally
funded resources which are intended for research or education.
I guess that there are many and varied angles on such a simple issue as
respecting the NSFNET guidelines. It would be interesting to explore
tham all.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk