Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse
From: mouse@SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Growing sentiment against gateways
Message-ID: <9006060613.AA00673@shamash.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 6 Jun 90 06:13:39 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 64

> 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