Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!!PROGRAMMER From: SYSBJAV@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU (John Voigt - Academic Systems Programmer) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: (no subject given) Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 90 00:30:51 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 28 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 13 Jan 90 01:15:08 CST from On Sat, 13 Jan 90 01:15:08 CST David Lippke said: ....... >On the other hand, we've got to protect the network and sometimes drastic > actions are required to do that. However, removing an entire site from > the routing tables is a pretty serious deal. If it has to be done as an > emergency thing, then someone had better be trying real hard to contact > the proper authorities at that site at the same time. If a site is going > to be removed for some amount of time as "punishment"... well, I think a > thing like that has to be decided by the board. > Hold it just a dang minute here. If anyone thinks that removing a node from the routing tables for a month or two is a good punishment, I don't think they've thought it out very well. Who's going to suffer as a result? The node in question? Well, perhaps a little. But every other nodes users are going to have hell when they try to correspond with users at the naughty site. I think we'd better think of some other form of punishment. Just think what would happen if CUNY were bad boys and had to be punished. It boggles the mind. John/ P.S. Sorry to drag up this old thread - been meaning to reply but just been too busy. P.P.S. I hope I didn't get David's comments out of context by not including enough. I hate wading through a long inclusion from another posting. David certainly wasn't advocating removing nodes as punishment in his original posting (which was a followup anyway.)