Abuse Complaint out of homer@rahul.net
Oh, Goody. I get to deal with my first abuse complaint for my remailer. Seems to me that letting others decide what is or is not abuse without at least being able to see the abuse myself would be wrong, that opens the door to just anyone claiming they were abused and my taking action against the alleged abuser. Clearly though if some admin of a system considers something an abuse, one can not just blow them off, we are all responsible for responsible use of the net. Even if this posting came through a chain, this admin is going to try to trace back the chain through the other remailers. So if I give him the remailer it came from, he is going to pester that remailer operator who won't appreciate it. I will soon be able to install blocking on the To: or From: lines. Blocking the From lines is hard, because usually abuse comes through other remailers, so I can't just block that. I can however block To: lines if the person is abusing one particular usenet newsgroup or end receiver. It would seem that if I am going to take action against someone with blocking of some sort, then I have at least a right to see the full posting that is claimed to be abusive. By the way, rahul.net keeps syslog files world readable which I find to be a security leak, as anyone (specifically the Church of Scientology) could find out who is in communication with me and start to harrass them too. Comments on ethics and diplomatic handling of this would be appreciated. Homer
Homer, I am going to have to agree with you on this. A Sysadmin would have to see the messages or data that is suppose be harassing the complaintant. What I say is harassment may be different from what you say it is. Michael L. Acklin ------------>hroller@metronet.com Finger for Pub Key or MIT Key Server PGP Fingerprint: 86 D6 52 87 E4 FD 64 05 63 BA CA AA B8 A9 04
participants (2)
-
Homer Wilson Smith -
hroller@metronet.com