HUMAN-NETS Digest V8 #8

Skip to first unread message

Mar 2, 1985, 8:57:40 PM3/2/85
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>

HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 2 Mar 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
Query - Collaborated Simulation Systems &
Research on Homosexuality,
Responses to Queries - EMail Directory (2 msgs) &
Re: Trying to Reach Someone,
Computers and People - Firewalls (and flames) in Sendmail (2 msgs),
Computer Networks - Stargate (2 msgs),
Information - Seminars (2 msgs)

Date: 20-Feb-85 23:11 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK...@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: query -- collaborated simulation systems
To: works@rutgers,ai-list@sri-ai,smaug@rutgers,Info-Graphics@AIDS-Unix

I would like to hear about any simulation or modeling system in
existence or planned that would support multiple users/modelers or has
a particularly nice graphic modeling language (like an upgraded
MacProject but) for editing iterated difference equations. A game
system would be ok.

I will summarize the responses I get to the net.

-- kirk


Date: 25 Feb 85 22:52 +0100
From: Kurt_Ernulf%QZCOM....@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Research on homosexuality

This notice is part of a feasibility study to investigate the
possibility of using computer based message systems and conferences to
exchange information about topics within the behavioral sciences.

For the moment we are preparing a doctoral dissertation at the
Psychology Departement, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and as our
research subject will be in the area of human homosexuality, we have
chosen that as topic for the feasibility study.

Is there anybody working with research on homosexuality, that might be
interested in starting a mailing list for conferencing about the

Please reply to Kurt_Ernulf%QZCOM....@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
or to Sune_Innala%QZCOM....@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA


From: adrion%ucbingres@Berkeley (Rick Adrion)
To: To: tel...@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: Re: Electronic Mail Directory
Cc: zbbs%MIT...@MIT-MC.ARPA

I am sure the folks at the CSNET-CIC will soon reply, but the main
problem with nameservers is getting the initial data and keeping the
database updated. The NIC uses site liaisons (and the directory is
inaccurate, although pretty good), the CSNET nameserver has
individuals maintain their own entries (unfortunately there are fewer
than one would like). On ARPANET most sites support "finger" a
protocol which allows you to ask a site for a persons mail id (you
have to know the site).


Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 12:21:31 CST
From: Mike Caplinger <mi...@rice.ARPA>
Subject: network cartography
To: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT...@MIT-MC.ARPA>,
To: To: Vince....@CMU-CS-C.ARPA

I made an attempt to locate information about the node names and
geographic positions of various network hosts. The results so far

1) BITNET is well mapped. They have a lat/long database with

2) Somebody can map the ARPAnet, since the ARPA directory has a
geographic map in it. I was unable to find anyone who had the data,
however. (I tried the NIC and various people at SRI.) I have a
database with mailing addresses and phone numbers that could perhaps
be turned into a lat/long database.

3) The data exists for some USENET nodes, but I couldn't find anyone
who had it. I picked up rumors of a project to build a lat/long
database, and I know that a poll of sites was done where lat/long was
one of the questions, but I don't know where the results ended up.
Since links matter in this net, there is an ongoing project to
determine the links for purposes of auto-routing.

4) I haven't tried CSNET, but am interested in it. Again, I've seen
maps in the monthly CSNet newsletter, so the information exists.

I guess looking at BBS systems and electronic mail users would be
interesting, but I have no idea where to start. You could always tap
everyone's phone looking for carriers, but this seems undesirable :-).

- Mike


Date: 21 February 85 13:33 EST
Subject: Retraction

To Whom It May Concern:

I apologize for adding "CCS" to the bottom of my note in the last
issue of human-nets. It should have read either "Volunteer Network
Consultant" or "Free-Lance Network Consultant." My apologies to those
who were upset by my omission.

-- Gligor


Date: 19 February 85 22:27 EST
Subject: Firewalls (and flames) in sendmail

(Also forwarded by: Greg Skinner ( |

Originally sent from: M...@LLL-TIS.ARPA
Originally sent to: RMXJITRY@CORNELLA

Return-Path: <@MIT-MC:mcb%lll-tis.ARPA@lll-tis>
Date: Mon Feb 18 21:24:36 1985
From: mcb%lll-tis.ARPA@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Firewalls (and flames) in sendmail
To: header...@MIT-MC.ARPA
Cc: cak@Purdue, mas@Purdue

Well, my posting about denying Internet access to students seemed to
hit a raw nerve at many sites. Mail is running about 70% in favor of
my comments (the tenor of which were to leave well enough alone) and
the remainder were opposed, on the various grounds of security,
network/gateway capacity, policy, or DoD-related rules.

From cak@Purdue:
> It's late, and maybe I shouldn't be responding in my tired state,
> because I'm going to flame, but why did you send such a useless
> reply to the list? We have a real problem, need some help, and you
> try to tell us that we should just ignore it. Why must you
> question our motives?

The reply WAS meant to be useful, and I stand by it. My comment was
that you may not have a problem. Many times I have posted a question
of the form, "How can I do X?", and gotten the reply that for whatever
technical/administrative/commonsense reason, I really DON'T want to do
X. And I am thankful for it.

> Maybe it's escaped you, but the DARPA Internet is a *research*
> network. Our sponsoring agent has specified that ONLY research
> users should be allowed access. Therefore we have to put together
> some firewalls. It's not a question of cycles or bandwidth. It's
> policy.

I can understand that if you have an ARPANET sponsor breathing down
your necks, yelling, "GET THOSE %#$@&#@ STUDENTS OFF THE NET!!" and
threatening to yank your funding and DARPA authorization, that's one
thing. If that's the case, you truly have my sympathy, and I agree
that you certainly don't need my smug assertions about comity.

But if not, I'd wonder why you would want to make it an issue. It
doesn't take too much close reading of the headers of many of these
lists to determine that many institutions have granted more or less
general access to the Internet -- for mail purposes -- to their local
networks. It is also evident that ARPANET and MILNET gateways and
hosts are carrying a fair amount of off-net traffic, much of it
destined for UUCP, CSNET, and BITNET nodes.

Anyway, the volume of mail (and the intensity of the opinions
expressed therein) leads me to believe that student/casual access to
internetwork mail service is a problem that isn't going to go away. I
believe, as many do, that freedom of information flow should be
paramount, and that the value of an internet increases with the number
of persons accessible. On the other hand, there are real concerns
about resource consumption, security, and network sponsor policy

So, what are people doing about this? Are there alternatives that
preserve access to the internetwork community while balancing policy
concerns? Is this a problem or a non-problem?

My apologies for the long posting.
Perhaps this discussion should move elsewhere, like info-nets?

Michael C. Berch


Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 02:20:23-EST
From: Greg Skinner <G...@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: [Mark Shoemaker <m...@Purdue.ARPA>: Re: Firewalls in sendmail]

Part 2 of the "mail access to the Internet" discussion currently on

Greg Skinner

Return-Path: <@MIT-MC:m...@Purdue.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 85 01:19:06 est
From: Mark Shoemaker <m...@Purdue.ARPA>
To: m...@lll-tis.ARPA (Michael C. Berch)
Cc: header...@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Firewalls in sendmail


> Why not relax and enjoy it?

I wish we could -- but allowing approximately 4500 undergraduate
students access to the ARPAnet (even if only through mail) seems,
uh, unwise.

I'm curious: are there any schools out there that give unrestricted
ARPA mail access to all their students (and will admit it)?

Mark <mas@purdue>


Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 10:20 CST
From: Giebe...@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Stargate

I agree with Ken Laws that Email bombing is not going to do any good.
I disagree with the statement that Usenetters will have to pay for a
"guaranteed-free unmoderated message stream". New is a very cheap
fringe benefit to give to your employees. It can be limited to a some
disk space and after hours CPU time. The structure of the usenet is
fundamentelly different than ARPAnet. Each site contributes as much
as they like and no one can be kicked off the network (unless no site
in the world will allow them to dial in).
Also, moderation is a potential form of censorship that the usenet
has chosen not to implement. Most control is in the form of peer
pressure and there is seldom a need for anything more. If there is,
the site's administrator is contacted. They do not wish anymore
control and there is no reason to have any more control.

I can't answer all of Joseph Dehn's questions, but speaking as an
administrator of a site that has recently gotten on the usenet and
will soon receiving news, I can say their is no reason for backbone
sites at all. They will make the news go faster but it will still
make it without them.

What was the point to Werner Uhrig's message? Was he saying that
Frank Adrian's message did not reflect the truth? I feel that Frank's
message did make a lot of good points. If backbone sites require
moderation, it will hurt the usenet, though I don't think destroy it.

Lauren didn't address the moderation issue, but I feel peck@sri-spam
had a great suggestion. What is the answer to the liable question? A
lot of the news we get on the arpanet comes from the usenet so this
does affect us. Perhaps some who can read and could summarize what is happening.


Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 11:54:54 pst
From: dual!fair@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair)
Subject: Legal Issues concerning USENET

Quick summary in answer to the question of who's sue-able over the
content of messages on USENET:

The USENIX Association retained a law firm to do some research into
this area, and one of the senior partners in the firm gave a report at
the last USENIX Conference, last month in Dallas.

The USENET (legally) can fit into either of two existing

1) A Common Carrier
2) A Broadcaster

but it does not fit clearly into either because it is a new sort of
beast. As I understand it, Common Carriers (e.g. AT&T, MCI, US Postal
Service) are not responsible for the content of the information that
they transmit from place to place.

Broadcasters (e.g. ABC, WTBS, NPR) are subject to regulation by the
Federal Communications Comission, and are responsible for the content
of the information that they transmit (i.e. no obscenity, pornography,

USENET is different in that it uses the techniques of a Common Carrier
to achieve the effect of a Broadcaster. USENET is a store-and-forward
network, wherein any message will eventually reach all points in the
network (unless the distribution is restricted; there are a number of
restricted distributions covering specific geographic areas (e.g. the
S.F. Bay Area)). Clearly we wish to be considered as a Common Carrier,
and not a Broadcaster.

Stargate changes things in that we would be using the methods of a
broadcaster to achieve the effect of a broadcaster, and it pushes
the nature of USENET more in the direction of a Broadcaster (legally)
and there would be an apparently singular source of all submissions
(not really the case, but the casual observer might assume so) which
would be subject to legal attack in a way that no singular USENET site
is today.

The suggested solution to this problem is one that has been in use on
the ARPA INTERNET for quite some time (but for somewhat different
reasons): moderation of content. As all of you are probably aware, the
HUMAN-NETS digest is moderated by Charles McGrew of RUTGERS. He has
been doing it for about the last two years (I think it has been that
long), and has done an admirable job (Take a bow, Charles). The
INTERNET community has never really had problems with this format (at
least none I've been aware of in the last four years that I've been a
user of the INTERNET), and so the issue of moderating a list is mostly
concern over timeliness of the mailing. Not so on USENET. There has
been great hue and cry that ``moderation'' is just another word for
``censorship'', with the many bad connotations which that word has.
And, of course, the USENET has the same problem that the INTERNET
community has in finding good, willing moderators.

I don't know what the resolution of the discussion will be, but I'm in
favor of moderated groups because in general they present (at least on
the INTERNET) a higher quality level of content with reduced quantity
(e.g. when someone asks, ``Does anyone know foo?'' the moderator takes
one or two of the best answers and includes them instead of *all*
replies received). I'm hoping that this sort of moderation will see a
proper test on the USENET and will flourish.

Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fa...@ucb-arpa.ARPA

Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California


Date: 25 February 1985 22:48-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: [JOHN: Seminar]

MSG: *MSG 3738
Date: 02/25/85 13:08:39
From: JOHN at MIT-XX
Re: Seminar

Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 13:09:42-EST
From: John J. Doherty <JO...@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Seminar
To: bbo...@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: jo...@MIT-XX.ARPA


Date: February 28, 1985

Time: Refreshments 9:45 A.M.

Seminar 10:00 A.M.

Place: NE43-512A


Bruce R. Schatz

Bell Communications Research

Morristown, New Jersey

The vision of universal, uniform access to the world's information
has intrigued people for a long time. A system which provides
"telesophy", wisdom at a distance, would be an operating environment
for the WorldNet. It would enable users to navigate information
space: browsing transparently through physically distributed data,
selecting items of current interest, and packaging them for sharing
among members of the information community.



Date: 28 February 1985 22:46-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: [hamscher: Seminar -- "Telegluttony"]

MSG: *MSG 3754
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 85 15:02:20 est
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
To: *mac
Re: Seminar -- "Telegluttony"


Date: March 1, 1985
Time: Refreshments 12:00 Noon
Place: 3rd Floor Theory Playroom
Hosts: David Clemens & Sandiway Fong


Bruce S. Printztein

Big Mama's Telephone Company

Asbury Park, New Jersey

The vision of universal, uniform access to a free lunch has
intrigued graduate students for a long time. A system which
provides "telegluttony", eating at a distance, would be a
feeding environment for the WorldTrough. It would enable
graduate students to navigate goody space: browsing absently
through physically distributed refrigerators, selecting morsels
of currant interest and squirreling them away for later consumption.

<<Indeed, it appears from recent messages about missing sandwiches
that this dream may be closer to reality than we think...>>


End of HUMAN-NETS Digest

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages