Policy implementation is not a foreign concept here in the slightest. We are
also aware that there are people behind the machines. Even if you program
your machine to break mine, it wasn't the machine that did it, but you.
You have been discussing at what level do we take an attack seriously. We
are answering that an attack at any level violates the intention of a list
service. You ask again when we would assume a defensive posture and we reply
again that any attack is an attack. We are talking in circles. This isn't a
discussion of policy implementation.
You attack. We respond. We don't lock out the whole world because you might
attack. Evidently you aren't interested in lists for their content but
rather for the potential to break them. On the other hand, most list
administrators are motivated by the thought that they are providing
something of value to their list members. The technology seems to fascinate
you, but list content interests the admins. The machines are simply tools.
Sorry to say this, Steve, but your approach seems rather pathological.
--Chris McEwen
Socrates Press, Keyport WA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Bergeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yeah it's simple, even simplistic. Also reactive and after the
fact. You all would rather have your beepers go off and have
to scramble around at whatever hour to close the barn doors
after the fact rather than be proactive and enforce a policy
by the use of technology? Isn't that like saying you would
connect to the internet without a firewall and just yell at
whoever violates your assumed policies?
Maybe policy implementation is a foreign term for this list.
