Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!agate!woodstock.berkeley.edu!smoot
From: smoot@woodstock.berkeley.edu (Stephen [Steve] R Smoot)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: RFC on my "abuse"
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.005039.3976@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:50:39 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.154257.7452@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun25.213406.18977@cis.ohio-state.edu> <25.Jun.91.180934.68@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: UC Berkeley
Lines: 44

This seems to be partially the same issue as whether randomly trying
"guest" accounts is abuse.  The problem is that some people offer services
to the rest of the community, and there must be a way to get to them.  Thus
guest and anonymous ftp were created (Necessity being the mother of
invention and all that.).

There seem to be three kind of sites:
	1) ones with *publically* available stuff they want *anyone* to use.
	2) ones which want to export to *certain known users*.
	3) ones with no interest in others contacting them/using their resources.

The only way to serve group 1 is to have well known ways for the resources
to be requested.  Thus guest and anonymous.

The way to serve group 2 is to alert the intended audience and either
supply them with a password for guest, or some such.

The problem with group 3 is they view being contacted as if they were in
group 1 as an invasion, not as an inquiry.

IMHO, the guest/anonymous access must be maintained to support group 1. 
IMHO, people in group 3 should chill about the whole thing.
IMHO, people in group 2 should use mechanisms other than guest/anonymous
  (in a recent thread people from group 2 complaind about users using
  their sites as if in group 1, when they were *intended to be group 2*,
  though the group 2 people used just the guest/anonymous (group 1 mechanisms) 
  instead of *bothering* to do something more complex.)

The complication, of course, is "the evil hackers" who pretend to look for
sites of type 1, but actually want to maliciously steal
information/processing power/"just to do it" or etc. reasons.
Stopping them yet permitting group 1 sites, is left an an exercise for the
reader.

-s

PS.  Returning to the orig. issue.  It seems that John was searching for
sites of group 1, and was accosted by a group 3 site.  This was then
complicated by his admin. not dealing with the situation in a
straightforward manner (such as emailing a request to stop), but instead
by assuming malicious intent and taking unwarranted action.

Personally I'm more interested in the deeper question of how to support
group 1 and yet keep group 3 happy.