Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!UTDALLAS!LIPPKE From: LIPPKE@UTDALLAS.BITNET (David Lippke) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: (no subject given) Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 90 19:07:29 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 25 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 17 Jan 90 18:30:51 CST from > ... 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. Absolutely correct. It's the users everywhere that would be punished for the failings of the administrative crew. On top of that, taking people out of the routing tables doesn't work out too well from a technical standpoint in any case. The "bad site" can still send as many files and messages as it wants to anywhere it wants. Only then, nobody can return fire (so to speak). This all tracks back to the fundamental problem/fact that enforcement of any BITNET policy is something that really can't be done with an iron fist. Returning to the Shafie incident (hopefully for the last time), I'm pretty satisfied with how the problem was resolved. I think that Jim Conklin's direct conversation with him will have the right effect and it was the sort of attention that I think BITNIC should pay to incidents like this. Regards, David