As a user of a dial-in modem pool which neccessitates dynamic IP allocation
I would be concerned about banning a very wide range of IP addresses from
the use of a reflector. It certainly would be difficult to ban a certain
person who is dynamically allocated an IP address and I admit the perogative
of the reflector maintainer to enforce codes of conduct, but I really think
that banning a range of valid IP addresses is not the way to do it.
Inappropraite behavior is a concern, but until we find better ways of
selectively using our powers of censorship, I feel that denying access to
communication to be a far greaer danger. Ponint-to-point communciation
which is not selectively "filtered" by those agencies who have,
historically, determined what is going to be heard, is a defining feature of
improved technology. New rules are having to evolve to cope with changes in
communication structure, but we must be very wary of denying communciation
access (a form of censorship).
Now I'll get off my soapbox. I agree that the demonstrated behavior was
inappropriate and I hope we on this list can come up with some ideas which
will help guide how this new technology is used (and denied). Good luck to
David, it's a tough problem.
Judah Eckenberg
Original post follows:
>>From:dwatson@metz.une.edu.au (David Watson)
>>Subject:Banned user....204.31.246.47
>>
>>I have banned the following user (204.31.246.47) from our reflector site
>>and have sent a message to other Australian reflectors about this users
>>lewd conduct. As a public site the quickest way to get us shut down is
>>when some one decides to fondle themselves for the masses. Perhaps this
>>message can help the user set up their own private refelector. Interesting
>>as the person must have a following as with about 60 seconds there were
>>about 10 connection from Lurkers...
>>
>>
><Zero length text item>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
_________
Judah Eckenberg
http://babel.uoregon.edu/yamada.html
Yamada Web Development Team