On June 26, 2003 at 21:04 research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com (Yakov
Shafranovich) wrote:
In your opinion, isn't spam considering a specific case of a network abuse
problem? Why is the spam problem any different from lets say a BBS user
dialing in every moment and giving all other BBS users a busy signal. OR
lets say in a shared-Unix system, a user grabbing too much disk space
leaving not much for anyone else.
Scope.
Ringing your phone over and over is annoying as hell.
Ringing every phone in the city over and over is evidence of a massive
security breach.
Any idiot can ring one (or a few) phones over and over.
But once someone has acquired the technological savvy to ring millions
of phones and no one can stop them we're in a whole different ball
park.
Telling people to unhook the bell on their phone (boy I must be old to
even think of that) doesn't quite address the latter issue.
In both cases, there were mechanisms in place to catch the wrongdoers and
enforce the rules. The problem with the Internet is as many people have
mentioned, is that it is an open system, written by people no expecting
abuse - by people who trusted each user on the network to do the right
thing. As far as I understand you, what you and Eric Brunner are trying to
bring to everyone's attention, is the need for similar controls on the
Internet so massive network abuse can be detected early and stopped.
I think we need to begin to recognize the problem for what it actually
is. A massive security breach which no doubt violates many extent laws
and not just some obnoxious behavior which needs to be curbed by
smartening things up a little.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg