Earthlink.net anyone?
Coke_Not_Pepsi
Hello:
I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
me.
And thanks a lot for the info I've been reading on the Best/Slip-net
thread. I was getting set to try out Slip net, but not anymore.
eric
--
Eric Fong http://www.ccnet.com/~phantom
Stef Jones
Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
>tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
>ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
>me.
All I know is, I can *never* get onto web pages on Earthlink.
--
Stef ** rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty **
** st...@bayarea.net ** http://www.bayarea.net/~stef **
--------------------------------------------------------
Cartoon Law I: Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made
aware of its situation.
Mike Perry
On 1 Jul 1996 18:12:14 GMT, Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Hello:
>
>I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
>tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
>ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
>me.
>
>thread. I was getting set to try out Slip net, but not anymore.
>
>eric
>
>
>--
>Eric Fong http://www.ccnet.com/~phantom
I would not recommend slip.net and I honestly cannot recommend earthlink
either. I was informed quite a bit ago that they would cancel an account
that I had with BDT and had cancelled before it changed but somehow I
showed up on their membership list anyhow. Earthlink informed me that they
would credit my credit card for three months past the date I had cancelled.
Now almost 4 months later, they again charge to the same credit card that
they had purportedly credited for an inactive account. I would like to
ask earthlink if they plan on crediting this amount and when. I have
sent an email to sales but have not heard anything back. All I want is
to have the latest charge for 19.95 credited since I am not a earthlink
account holder nor a BDT account holder.
If your choices are best, earthlink, or slip.net there are two
recommendations I have. The first one is to get Miller's excellent
Bay area ISP list and look it over; the second if these are the three
finalists I would recommend Best.
--
Michael Perry
mpe...@basin.com
mpe...@best.com
Team OS/2
Tom Johnston
Stef Jones wrote:
>
> Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
>
>
So true..
--tom
Steve Machol
Coke_Not_Pepsi (sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Hello:
:
: I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
: tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
: ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
: me.
There have been numerous Spams originating from earthlink.net which have
caused many people to add this ISP to their killfiles. You might want to
check out the net-abuse newsgroup for any messages concerning Earthlink
before you make the decision to switch.
Steve
--
___ ____ ____ _ _ ____
/ __)(_ _)( ___)( \/ )( ___) Steve Machol
\__ \ )( )__) \ / )__) sma...@wco.com
(___/ (__) (____) \/ (____) http://www.wco.com/~smachol/
Keith Clark
Stef Jones (st...@baygate.bayarea.net) wrote:
: Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: >I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
: >tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
: >ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
: >me.
: All I know is, I can *never* get onto web pages on Earthlink.
Anyone considering Earthlink as a provider should first read some of
the information/complaints about this ISP in news.admin.net-abuse.misc
There has been an increasing discussion of declaring Earthlink a rogue
site and my understanding is that some newsadmins have already taken
steps to ban incoming Usenet posts from Earthlink at their sites because
of Earthlink's unwillingness to do anything about the huge quantities of
Spam/scam originating from their site. Moreover, I sure wouldn't want to
be paying money to an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists... kinda
like subscribing to a service provider run by Pat Robertson.
Jack Beglinger
sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Coke_Not_Pepsi) wrote:
>Hello:
>I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I was
>tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
>ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
>me.
>And thanks a lot for the info I've been reading on the Best/Slip-net
>thread. I was getting set to try out Slip net, but not anymore.
>eric
>--
>Eric Fong http://www.ccnet.com/~phantom
Look at DNAI. Was with BDT, then Earthlink. BDT was great, Earthlink
sucked. DNAI is a real close look a like to the great service of BDT.
I am sorry that BDT was bought by Earthlink.
ps: my brother just started with earthlink and thinks they are great
but he does not use news groups yet, also was an AOLer. :-)
jackb
Stephen Newman
keit...@netcom.com (Keith Clark) wrote:
> Moreover, I sure wouldn't want to
>be paying money to an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists... kinda
>like subscribing to a service provider run by Pat Robertson.
This claim is patently false, an article was recently published
addressing these claims. You can read it at the following url:
Rusty Hodge
> > Moreover, I sure wouldn't want to
> >be paying money to an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists... kinda
> >like subscribing to a service provider run by Pat Robertson.
>
> This claim is patently false, an article was recently published
> addressing these claims. You can read it at the following url:
Patently false? Maybe slightly misleading.
From that url: (http://www.slate.com/Earthling/Current/Earthling.asp)
> Anyway, Sky Dayton faces something more elusive than
> lies. Itąs true that heąs a Scientologist (like
> John Travolta, Chick Corea, etc.). łI practice my
> personal right to choose my own beliefs,˛ he says.
Sky Dayton runs Earthlink.
Sky Dayton is a Scientologist.
The person who runs Earthlink is a Scientologist.
The claim above is wrong in that Earthlink isn't owned by _the_
Scientologists (i.e. the Church of Scientology), but by Scientologists
(members of the church).
People who are opposed to Scientology probably do not want to do business
with people who support it, much like people who are Pro Choice do not
like to do business with people or firms that support right-to-life
groups. Etc.
--
Rusty Hodge, Hodge Interactive <ru...@hodge.com> San Francisco
Stephen Newman
Rusty Hodge wrote:
> Patently false? Maybe slightly misleading.
The claim "[EarthLink]..an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists.." is
far beyond
slightly misleading. This twist of the truth adds to the confusion.
> From that url: (http://www.slate.com/Earthling/Current/Earthling.asp)
> Sky Dayton runs Earthlink.
> Sky Dayton is a Scientologist.
> The person who runs Earthlink is a Scientologist.
> The claim above is wrong in that Earthlink isn't owned by _the_
> Scientologists (i.e. the Church of Scientology), but by Scientologists
> (members of the church).
Many people "run earthlink" many of which are non-scientologists (not
that it is anyones business.)
Your own implication of "[Earthlink is owned by]..Scientologists
(members of the church)" is no more accurate than saying the Church
itself runs Earthlink. Neither is true.
> People who are opposed to Scientology probably do not want to do business
> with people who support it, much like people who are Pro Choice do not
> like to do business with people or firms that support right-to-life
> groups. Etc.
There are over 500 people working in the company, many do not support
the Church of Scientology. It is not a requirment for employment. The
company believes in everyones right to freedom of practicing their own
religious or non religious beliefs.
"[...] I want you to know that I care deeply about
everyone's right to practice their beliefs and be who they are, whatever
race, creed, or sex. I want our company to be a model of an eclectic
group
together for the sole purpose of growing and having a great time while
doing it." -Sky Dayton
> --
> Rusty Hodge, Hodge Interactive <ru...@hodge.com> San Francisco
-steve
Steve
Keith Clark wrote:
>
> Stef Jones (st...@baygate.bayarea.net) wrote:
> : Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> : >tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was wondering if the
> : >ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds good to
> : >me.
>
>
> Anyone considering Earthlink as a provider should first read some of
> the information/complaints about this ISP in news.admin.net-abuse.misc
> There has been an increasing discussion of declaring Earthlink a rogue
> site and my understanding is that some newsadmins have already taken
> steps to ban incoming Usenet posts from Earthlink at their sites because
> of Earthlink's unwillingness to do anything about the huge quantities of
> be paying money to an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists... kinda
> like subscribing to a service provider run by Pat Robertson.
Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
delete them? It's funny that there are so many posts from them, but if
it was not coming from Earthlink, it will be coming from another source.
I do not think we can expect that. Now there service is another story
(which is why I am no longer with them). In a word....it sucks!
Barry Twycross
In article <31E020...@pacbell.net>, Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Keith Clark wrote:
>> : Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : >I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net?
>> Anyone considering Earthlink as a provider should first read some of
>> the information/complaints about this ISP in news.admin.net-abuse.misc
>> There has been an increasing discussion of declaring Earthlink a rogue
>> site
>Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
No one is asking them to be accountable for their users, just that they
try to get their users to follow accepted practices. (and those that
refuse to be sanctioned.)
>Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>delete them?
No, but if an errant post is pointed out to them, they can cancel it and
take up the problem with the user.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
Posted under the restrictions imposed by the US government.
joanna
Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> sez:
>Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>delete them?
If there are people complaining to Earthlink about a spammer,
Earthlink should do something about it, like let the spammer know that
what he/she is doing is unacceptable Internet practice.
I send every single unsolicited email message I get to
postm...@whatever.provider.com, asking them that they inform their
users that unsolicited email is a Bad Thing. I've gotten responses
from Netcom, saying that they've terminated people's accounts.
It's funny that there are so many posts from them, but if
>it was not coming from Earthlink, it will be coming from another source.
> I do not think we can expect that.
Oh, it may be coming from another source, but we can complain to those
other sources as well. If they're smart enough, they'll get the
picture sooner or later.
Now there service is another story
>(which is why I am no longer with them). In a word....it sucks!
-joanna
--
Joanna L. Salgado | -0-0- When all else fails, read the
Sweet Hall Consulting | & instructions.
call...@cyclone.stanford.edu | \___/ --Cann's Axiom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bailey
In article <4rpclo$i...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>,
joanna <call...@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> sez:
>>Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>>Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>>delete them?
>
>If there are people complaining to Earthlink about a spammer,
>Earthlink should do something about it, like let the spammer know that
>what he/she is doing is unacceptable Internet practice.
I have never seen Earthlink do anything about any nuisance user whether it
be netnews or email spammers. Case in point, the "1000 Shares" email
spammer who has been bothering people for months.
--
Jack Bailey
zNET Internet Services
<mailto:j...@zNET.com>
Steve
Barry Twycross wrote:
>
> In article <31E020...@pacbell.net>, Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Keith Clark wrote:
>
> >Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>
> try to get their users to follow accepted practices. (and those that
> refuse to be sanctioned.)
And how is Earthlink, as a company, going to get their user's to follow
accepted practices? Hold classes in Internet lingo and such? I just
don't think we can tell a company to do this. Their company is a ISP.
This is what they do. Their jobs are not to monitor, censor, or teach
idiots!
>
> >Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
> >delete them?
>
> No, but if an errant post is pointed out to them, they can cancel it and
> take up the problem with the user.
>
Yes, they can. If the post is obscene (sp?) they should be able to
delete it if it is on their server. But then again, it's proabably on
hundreds of other server's so what's the point? Would you like to
receive a letter (or phone call) giving you a slap on your wrist like
you had in grade school? Most of us are adults. We should all act like
it. Although there are many people who "forget" or are just plain
stupid. My point, I do not think ISP such as Earthlink hold this type
of responsibility.
paul theodoropoulos
Steve (ba...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: > No one is asking them to be accountable for their users, just that they
: > try to get their users to follow accepted practices. (and those that
: > refuse to be sanctioned.)
:
: And how is Earthlink, as a company, going to get their user's to follow
: accepted practices? Hold classes in Internet lingo and such? I just
: don't think we can tell a company to do this. Their company is a ISP.
: This is what they do. Their jobs are not to monitor, censor, or teach
: idiots!
True, but they have a responsibility, and an obligation, to act upon
_complaints_ regarding spam, whether email or news, emanating from their
network.
When we receive complaints, I'll usually issue a warning to the user in
question, and direct them to our Terms & Conditions statement on the web
page. However, if the spam is a monster, I may simply terminate the
account on the spot. If the previously warned user spams again, they are
gone - no appeals.
: > No, but if an errant post is pointed out to them, they can cancel it and
: > take up the problem with the user.
: >
:
: Yes, they can. If the post is obscene (sp?) they should be able to
: delete it if it is on their server. But then again, it's proabably on
: hundreds of other server's so what's the point? Would you like to
The administrator can ask the user to issue a cancel cmsg, which will
remove the message from the other servers. Or the admin can do it himself
if need be.
: receive a letter (or phone call) giving you a slap on your wrist like
: you had in grade school? Most of us are adults. We should all act like
: it. Although there are many people who "forget" or are just plain
: stupid. My point, I do not think ISP such as Earthlink hold this type
: of responsibility.
As a matter of 'good-netizenship', the ISP does have a responsibility to
act upon complaints. The lines can get blurred sometimes however - we have
a dozen downstream ISP's who read/post off of one of our newsservers, so
we frequently get complaints misdirected to us, instead of the site of
origination (the NNTP-Posting-Host: header line). Annoying, but that's
life on the 'net.
Responsible action is the lubricant required for real Freedom.
--
Paul Theodoropoulos ad...@wco.com
Vice President
West Coast Online, Inc.
The Nicest Guy on the Internet
Kristen Kohlbecker
Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> writes:
>Barry Twycross wrote:
>>
>> In article <31E020...@pacbell.net>, Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Keith Clark wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> >Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>>
>> try to get their users to follow accepted practices. (and those that
>> refuse to be sanctioned.)
>
>And how is Earthlink, as a company, going to get their user's to follow
>accepted practices? Hold classes in Internet lingo and such? I just
>don't think we can tell a company to do this. Their company is a ISP.
>This is what they do. Their jobs are not to monitor, censor, or teach
>idiots!
Nice sentiment but totally wrong.
I'd be happy if they would require reading the news.announce.newusers FAQ
before letting people post to Usenet news, but I think that is unlikely
to happen. There was a time when Netcom was being considered for a UDP
because of various spammers and brainless idiots. It took some loud and
long complaints but Netcom finally dealt with at least some of the
complaints. It is in a company's best interests to make sure their
user base follows proscribed guidelines. A UDP'ed service that can't
deliver mail or news offsite is as useless as no service at all.
It's silly how difficult you are trying to make this out to be. There
are any number of ways a company can quickly and relatively painlessly let
their userbase know that certain activities will not be tolerated. An
e-mail, a post, a short snail mail. When I signed up with Netcom, I signed
a form indicating I had read and understood their Acceptable Use Policy.
I recall it being a relatively stress free experience.
If Earthlink will not police their people, the rest of the Net will.
>> >Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>> >delete them?
>>
>> No, but if an errant post is pointed out to them, they can cancel it and
>> take up the problem with the user.
>
>Yes, they can. If the post is obscene (sp?) they should be able to
>delete it if it is on their server. But then again, it's proabably on
>hundreds of other server's so what's the point? Would you like to
>receive a letter (or phone call) giving you a slap on your wrist like
>you had in grade school? Most of us are adults. We should all act like
>it. Although there are many people who "forget" or are just plain
>stupid. My point, I do not think ISP such as Earthlink hold this type
>of responsibility.
A cancel message will cancel a post on any site that accepts cancel messages
(I have heard some sites do not honor cancels because of those same sorts of
idiots I mentioned earlier). My understanding from my SO, who is a News
administrator is that it is fairly simple for an administrator to send out a
cancel, or order a user to cancel a post that is in violation of an ISP's
Terms of Service/Acceptable Use Policy. Again you are making policing users
out to be far more difficult than it is.
I don't think anyone is asking them to monitor newsgroups (a daunting task
even at sites with limited newsfeeds). I get the impression that people
simply want their reasonable complaints about a user or users to be responded
to and dealt with as if someone gives a tinker's damn. I don't understand
what you find so odious about that.
Look, why don't you go sit in on news.admin.net-abuse.misc for a while?
Then maybe someone there will be able to explain to your satisfaction why
an ISP *should* have policies regarding use and enforce them.
Tyger
--
Kristen Kohlbecker And I would choose to be with you
ty...@netcom.com That's if the choice were mine to make
But you can make decisions too
A Tyger and a Lady And you can have this heart to break
Barry Twycross
>And how is Earthlink, as a company, going to get their user's to follow
>accepted practices?
Like a lot of other companies do, not standing by while the net is abused
by their users. The complaints are not so much that users contravene such
practises, but that they are allowed to do it repeatedly. Earthlink have
it in their power to make sure a user does repeatedly a transgress.
>Hold classes in Internet lingo and such?
Introducing new users to the concepts of netiquette seems an excelent idea
to me. There is plenty of source material freely available.
>> >Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>> >delete them?
>> No, but if an errant post is pointed out to them, they can cancel it and
>> take up the problem with the user.
>Yes, they can. If the post is obscene (sp?) they should be able to
>delete it if it is on their server. But then again, it's proabably on
>hundreds of other server's so what's the point?
I don't see why the post being obscene should make a difference. Thats not
what the fuss is about. The fuss is about abuse of the network, which
usually means spam in all its forms. The accepted crtieria for spam
cencellation (by third parties) is not sensitive to content (like
obscenity).
You may be surprised to learn that a cancel issued for a usenet article
propgates to other servers just like the original message. (Not surprising
as its just another usenet message.)
Ann Whitehead
Are they REALLY Scientologists?
In article <31E020...@pacbell.net>, ba...@pacbell.net says...
>
>Keith Clark wrote:
>>
>> Stef Jones (st...@baygate.bayarea.net) wrote:
>> : Coke_Not_Pepsi <sta...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : >I was wondering if anyone has any opinions on earthlink.net? I
was
>> : >tempted to switch from my current ISP (ccnet.com) but was
wondering if the
>> : >ISP was worth it. The $19.95 unlimited PPP/SLIP account sounds
good to
>> : >me.
>>
>> : All I know is, I can *never* get onto web pages on Earthlink.
>>
>> Anyone considering Earthlink as a provider should first read some
of
>> the information/complaints about this ISP in
news.admin.net-abuse.misc
>> There has been an increasing discussion of declaring Earthlink a
rogue
>> site and my understanding is that some newsadmins have already taken
>> steps to ban incoming Usenet posts from Earthlink at their sites
because
>> of Earthlink's unwillingness to do anything about the huge
quantities of
>> Spam/scam originating from their site. Moreover, I sure wouldn't
want to
>> be paying money to an ISP that's owned by the Scientologists...
kinda
>> like subscribing to a service provider run by Pat Robertson.
>
>
>Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>delete them? It's funny that there are so many posts from them, but
if
>it was not coming from Earthlink, it will be coming from another
source.
> I do not think we can expect that. Now there service is another
Steve
joanna wrote:
>
> Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> sez:
> >Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
> >Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
> >delete them?
>
> Earthlink should do something about it, like let the spammer know that
> what he/she is doing is unacceptable Internet practice.
And what should Earthlink do? Spank them and say Bad User! Bad User!
Mike Stump
In article <31E697...@pacbell.net>, Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>joanna wrote:
>>
>> If there are people complaining to Earthlink about a spammer,
>> Earthlink should do something about it, like let the spammer know that
>> what he/she is doing is unacceptable Internet practice.
>
>And what should Earthlink do? Spank them and say Bad User! Bad User!
You must be a clueless newbie. I am used to high quality providers
that remove accounts faster than you can say loser. See
http://www.primenet.com/info/aup.html for how it might be phrased.
I'll include some of that below.
Do, what will PacBell's network be know as, the network for losers and
spammers, or something else?
21. The following violations of "netiquette" are grounds for immediate
suspension of service pending investigation by PRIMENET and will
result in termination of the account(s) the investigation determines
to have originated or transmitted these types of traffic.
(a) Posting a single article or substantially similar articles to an
excessive number of newsgroups (i.e., more than 20) or continued
posting of articles which are off-topic (e.g., off-topic according
to the newsgroup charter or the article provokes complaints from
the regular readers of the newsgroup for being off-topic).
(b) Sending unsolicited mass emailings (i.e., to more than 25 users)
which provoke complaints from the recipients.
(c) Engaging in either (a) or (b) from a provider other than PRIMENET and
using an account on PRIMENET as a mail drop for responses.
(d) Continued harrassment of other individuals on the Internet after
being asked to stop by those individuals and by PRIMENET.
(e) Impersonating another user or otherwise falsifying one's user name
in email, Usenet postings, on IRC, or with any other Internet
service. (This does not preclude the use of nicknames in IRC or
the use of anonymous remailer services.)
(f) Use of IRC "bots" on PRIMENET, whether on our IRC server or any
other. Such software may not be stored on PRIMENET.
Steve
Kristen Kohlbecker wrote:
>
> I'd be happy if they would require reading the news.announce.newusers FAQ
> before letting people post to Usenet news, but I think that is unlikely
> to happen.
Yes, this would be nice, but it is unlikely to happen! It will not. I do not think it's the ISP
responsibility. They should tell people that they should read some net-etiqute (sp?) documents, but they
can't force them!
> There was a time when Netcom was being considered for a UDP
> because of various spammers and brainless idiots. It took some loud and
> long complaints but Netcom finally dealt with at least some of the
> complaints. It is in a company's best interests to make sure their
> user base follows proscribed guidelines. A UDP'ed service that can't
> deliver mail or news offsite is as useless as no service at all.
>
How did they deal with these idiots?
> It's silly how difficult you are trying to make this out to be. There
> are any number of ways a company can quickly and relatively painlessly let
> their userbase know that certain activities will not be tolerated. An
> e-mail, a post, a short snail mail. When I signed up with Netcom, I signed
> a form indicating I had read and understood their Acceptable Use Policy.
> I recall it being a relatively stress free experience.
Yes, you signed something. But please site some explict examples of when they actually deleted someone? I am
sure some letters have gone out, but I am sure only a small number (if any) has been deleted. Besides, that
anyone would just go on to the next ISP. If I am wrong, good for them.
>
> If Earthlink will not police their people, the rest of the Net will.
>
This shouldn't be the ISP or other user's responsibility, however, it just comes with the territory. There
are too many idiots out there!
> A cancel message will cancel a post on any site that accepts cancel messages
> (I have heard some sites do not honor cancels because of those same sorts of
> idiots I mentioned earlier). My understanding from my SO, who is a News
> administrator is that it is fairly simple for an administrator to send out a
> cancel, or order a user to cancel a post that is in violation of an ISP's
> Terms of Service/Acceptable Use Policy. Again you are making policing users
> out to be far more difficult than it is.
I do not think I am making it out to be more difficult. I just think there is more to it then just "Make the
user read and sign an agreement or we'll slap their hands!".
> I don't think anyone is asking them to monitor newsgroups (a daunting task
> even at sites with limited newsfeeds). I get the impression that people
> simply want their reasonable complaints about a user or users to be responded
> to and dealt with as if someone gives a tinker's damn. I don't understand
> what you find so odious about that.
I agree. Idiotic users should be delt with. However, I just don't think it is that easy. And as a company,
whose goal is profit, would cut anyone off except for major things and stuff that may make the company liable.
>
> Look, why don't you go sit in on news.admin.net-abuse.misc for a while?
> Then maybe someone there will be able to explain to your satisfaction why
> an ISP *should* have policies regarding use and enforce them.
I totally agree that there should be a "code of ethics" on the net, I just don't think it will happen.
joanna
Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> sez:
>joanna wrote:
>>
>> Steve <ba...@pacbell.net> sez:
>> >Now how can we hold Earthlink accountable for actions of their user's?
>> >Do we expect them to read every post that is written by idiots then
>> >delete them?
>>
>> Earthlink should do something about it, like let the spammer know that
>> what he/she is doing is unacceptable Internet practice.
>
>And what should Earthlink do? Spank them and say Bad User! Bad User!
Well maybe they should. And if the user persists, yank their
account. They make up for the loss in fees with a gain in
respectability and an increased chance that admins around the Internet
won't be blocking incoming messages from their IP addresses. This
will lead to fewer people being turned off by their service.
Here's a message I got a few weeks ago from Netcom's abuse department
(okay, so I about died when I read it):
>Thank you for your report. We have located the user responsible for
>this spam and terminated the account for violation of Netcom's Terms
>and Conditions.
Now this makes me think a lot more highly of Netcom, although they
really had nowhere to go (IMO) but up.
Given your attitude, though, are we to expect spam from pacbell.net in
the near future? And if we do see it, are we to expect that we will
continue to see it?
Edward Wang
More to the point: I have been a customer of Earthlink
since they acquired BDT late last year.
The service from BDT was very good. The service from Earthlink
has been similar. I don't read much news these days, so I don't
know about the Scientology connection or what other Earthlink
users do (bad, bad Earthlink users!).
I may not be a typical user, however. I don't use them for
anything except IP service (and some news reading here).
As long as my IP packets get through, I'm happy. So I don't
know about mail forwarding, name service, or whatever.
However, I do notice right a way when the net is disrupted
(modem, router, or some other failure upstream).
In that limited way, Earthlink has been reliable.
Pete Nelson
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996 22:24:24 GMT, ty...@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
wrote:
>A cancel message will cancel a post on any site that accepts cancel messages
>(I have heard some sites do not honor cancels because of those same sorts of
>idiots I mentioned earlier). My understanding from my SO, who is a News
>administrator is that it is fairly simple for an administrator to send out a
How about a normal user posting a cancel message? In the small
selection of groups that I read, I cancel every one of those Make
Money Fast scheme messages that come through.
I'm assuming that the cancel message I send out is making it to other
sites. If I try to retrieve the message again after sending out a
cancel on it, the server says it's no longer available.
Agent doesn't let you cancel someone elses messages, but by posting a
control message, I have been able to cancel messages, on my provider's
news server at the least.
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Pete Nelson (wea...@ecis.com) | "Gaze fondly upon today, for tomorrow |
| <http://www.ecis.com/~weasel> | is bound to suck even worse." |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+