[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ProgSoc] Progsoc AUP
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 03:53:35PM +1000, Piers Johnson wrote:
> > > seems a bit draconian to ensure compilance with, say, Microsoft's
> > > network AUP.
> >Can't go with you there. It goes without saying that you use an extreme
> >example to make your point. But if any organisation has jurisdiction on a
> >network of its own -- and says that certain things are not to be done to
> >their network -- then I see no reason why we should condone our members
> >ignoring such requests/recommendations/demands. Let me emphasise that I'm
> >only talking about the remote network which actually belongs to such a
> >body (whether you/I/we like them or not).
> Why not amend it to:
> "Any activity causing traffic to or from any connected network which
> does not meet that network's AUP, so long as it does not conflict
> with Progsoc's AUP"
- we are still possibly subject to an AUPs from other networks. It should be
the job of the other network to enforce their AUP. Not ours.
- we would then need to have some kind of procedure in place to resolve
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are having trouble, ask email@example.com for help.