Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: RFC on my "abuse"
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.052725.14920@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 05:27:25 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.213406.18977@cis.ohio-state.edu> <25.Jun.91.180934.68@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> <1991Jun26.043640.19539@ms.uky.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 28

In article <1991Jun26.043640.19539@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>This <BANG> "Stop or I'll shoot." mentality isn't very mental.

 Where did you get this "stop or I'll shoot" business.  It certainly was
nowhere stated.

 What was stated was that initially the automated attempts were killed.  No
other actions is reported until they were started up again.  We don't know
whether the administrator sent email.  From the report it is quite possible
that he did send email, but this student is not in the habit of reading his
mail.  We don't know that.  We do know that on the restart the student
account was suspended in such a way that he saw the message when he
logged on.  You apparently treat this as punishment.  I don't.  It is a
very effective way of getting the user's attention.  If I have a user
causing problems who has ignored email messages, my next step is to do
exactly that.  (I give a restricted shell which prints the message.)

 From the report it seems that the administrator reinstated the account
after the student had been in to discuss the matter.  This would seem to
confirm my view that the admin wanted to get the student's attention, but
was not punishing him provided he agreed not to resume this activity.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940