Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of
Corporate Guidelines for Internet Usage
Sally Hambridge & Jeffrey C. Sedayao – Intel Corp.
ABSTRACTIntel’s Internet usage policy evolved from practically non-existant to explicitly defined – allin reaction to changing conditions and security threats. This paper covers the evolution ofIntel Internet access policy, a continual struggle to close the barn doors before the horses getout. Throughout the paper, we outline key lessons we have learned during the policy-making
process. It discusses Intel’s first taste of the Internet, Intel’s policy-making process, the open
access policy of that period, and the resulting security challenges. It then covers theimposition of a stricter policy and implementing a firewall to enforce that policy. The paper
proceeds to describe today’s problems, the majority of which center around Intel people
accessing the Internet. In response to this problem and growing numbers of people wanting
to use the Internet, Intel has drawn up explicit corporate guidelines on Internet use. These
guidelines are then compared to various Acceptable Use Policies and Netiquette guides. The
paper concludes with some additional tasks Intel is planning in order to keep the barn doors
closed.
Intel’s Introduction to the Internet
Intel Corporation has had access to the Internet
since 1987. At that time, we had a dial-up connection to the now defunct CSNET. We dialed Boston
from Santa Clara, California several times a day topick up and drop off mail. We did not have any
kind of Internet access policy. We felt secure inhaving complete copies of all messages sent in andout and having our modems block dial-ins.
While the dial-up connection provided muchneeded mail access to and from customers, vendors,
and research partners, functionality was too limited.
Delivery was so slow at times (days!) that paper
proved a quicker and more reliable communication
medium. Users complained that carrier pigeons
would deliver mail faster. The long distance calls
grew to be expensive. Because of these concerns
and the desire for direct FTP and telnet access to theInternet, in 1989 we traded our CSNET dial-up connection for one with direct IP access over a leased
line. An increase in functionality always means anincrease in risk, as we will see in the next section.
The Challenges of an Open DoorOur first policy was this: anyone in the company could go out on the Internet, and rlogin, telnet
and FTP access into Intel would be blocked. WE
were the access providers, and so we imposed thispolicy unilaterally. The only place this was written
down was in the router access list configuration.
What were the results of our (wide) open door?
We received many complaints about Internet accessfrom various system administrators around the company. They did not like the gaping door. Later,

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CAwith unsolicited help from federal agents, we foundsome crackers who did.
Key Lesson #1 – Research Policy Issues
Key Lesson #2 – Consult with users andstakeholders on policy decisions
Key Lesson #3 – Make the policy available
and readable.
Our policy was incredibly naive. We did not think
it through in depth and did not realize how easy it
would be for intruders to exploit gaping holes.
Furthermore, we did not have buy-in to our policy.
System administrators weren’t comfortable with it.
Even worse, they were uncomfortable with a policy
they couldn’t even read. Things had to change.
Shutting the Door Part Way
The problems we encountered forced us to realize our mistakes. We looked into Internet access
schemes implemented at other companies. We
wrote down and proposed a limited access policy.
This document was circulated for comment by electronic mail and presented at various user forums
within Intel. Finally, we had the policy approved byan internal change control group. This was an
official stamp that gave us legitimacy.
Our new policy restricted outbound Internet
access to specific systems. Inbound access was limited to certain protocols going to dedicated servers.
The outbound systems, controlled by site administrators, would be tightly controlled. Applications forInternet access systems would have to be signed bysite network managers, the system administrator’s
manager, and our internal Information Security
group. Applicants promised to read and obey ourpolicy, which was circulated with the application
forms.

9

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

Hambridge & Sedayao

Key Lesson #4 – Get key people to buy into apolicy. Better yet, get some kind of official
stamp of approval.
Key Lesson #5 – Forms with signature loops
are a way of making sure that people are serious about wanting something. It is also a
way to inform key parties of change and get
their buy-in.
We managed to get people involved in making ourpolicy. They bought into it, and we got an official
stamp of approval from a internal group. By using
forms, we weeded out people who weren’t serious
about managing Internet access systems. Moreover,
we gave our Information Security group a chance toreview and buy into the decision of who would wantaccess.
Key Lesson #6 – Provide metrics on usage
and quality of service.
We made the decision that we would track how
much the gateway was used and who was using it.
We look at sheer volume, such as how many bytes
each access system exchanges with the Internet andhow many messages are exchanged through the gateway mail servers. We also decided to track some
service metrics like mail delay through the gateway.
An Internet gateway status and usage report is produced and widely distributed every quarter.
Keeping metrics has proven to be a good decision. We can track utilization, which helps us withcapacity planning and with justifying new equipment. Management, initially unsure about funding
our gateway, is usually persuaded when they see
how much their people are using the Internet.
Finally, keeping metrics gives us some idea how
well we are managing the gateway.
Ironically, by shutting the door part way, usage
boomed. Throughout the six years we have had mailcapability, we have witnessed an exponential growthin the amount of mail coming into and going out of
the company. This growth is consistent with Internet growth trends industry wide. (See Figures 1 and2.)[1] Since Intel is a multi-site, multinational
operation, almost all Intel sites dedicated a numberof machines to provide ftp and telnet capability forgroups within the site.
With growth in the number of Internet
knowledgeable employees, (as well as those whohave heard of the Internet but know little) we’veseen demands for accounts on these machines
skyrocket. We’ve also seen a corresponding growthin different kind of security problems – from Intel
instead of to Intel. Most of these problems stemfrom people attempting logins to defunct accounts,
or naively trying to telnet to ftp machines and viceversa. Still, even these innocent mistakes mean time
and trouble. This is time and trouble for the systemmanager of the machine where the ‘‘break-in’’ isattempted as well as Intel’s Internet contact and thesystem administrator of the internal Intel machinefrom which the ‘‘attempt’’ occurred. Intel personnel
must then check system logs to determine who waslogged in at the time, then contact those people tofind out whether intent was indeed malicious. All of
this takes time from resources which function betteras network and system managers than High School
Vice Principals.
We discovered that almost all of our policy
focused on system and network administrators andnot on users. Although we put conditions on how
the access systems should be administered, we did
not provide any tools or help to do so. We should
not have been surprised that some of the Internet
access systems were far more open than we liked.
The incidents with misguided users sparked anotherfear. We could conceive scenarios [2] where a user
could create an incident severe enough to cause Intelto shut down or tremendously restrict our Internet
connection.

10

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

Getting the Horses to Behave
To combat these problems, an Internet Security
Task Force was formed. This ad hoc group consistsof representatives from Corporate Information Security and system managers and users. We hadlearned from past experience that only by getting
people involved could we create workable policies.
Corporate Information Security bears the
responsibility of protecting Intel’s intellectual property assets. This group sets policy and proceduresfor Information Security, publishes a yearly summaryof those policies, and has recently developed a classon information security for Intel employees.
In its Internet Policies, the Task Force has tried
to maintain a balance between getting people toinformation (and information to people) and maintaining reasonable security. First, although most ofus eschew bureaucracy, we ask those users requesting accounts on machines which have Internet telnet
and ftp access to justify having an account. We
have found that many people think they need directaccess to the Internet in order to send Internet mail.
Since sending Internet mail is possible from any
networked machine at Intel, we inform the user how
to send mail and this eliminates the need for theaccount. We do ask that the user have a legitimate
business reason for telnet and ftp access before we
grant the account.
Second, accounts on Internet accessible
machines are set to expire at 6 months. If a user
doesn’t use the account enough to notice it has
expired, it will not be an open door. This is a minor
inconvenience to users who need their accounts(especially compared to the benefits).
Key Lesson #7 – User education is critical
Key Lesson #8 – Create explicit and enforceable policies

Hambridge & Sedayao

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

Third, Intel has created a set of Internet Etiquette Guidelines for Internet users (contained inappendix A). The Task Force felt it needed a distinct set of guidelines for a number of reasons:First, policies need to be explicit. Tradition andword-of-mouth fail to carry any legal consequence.
Second, existing Acceptable Use Policies[3,4] are
too generic. Although most of these provide good
general guidelines, they do not deal with circumstances specific to Intel or even specific to abusiness environment. Third, we’ve found that Netiquette Guides[5] are good for beginning users, but
may not necessarily address behavior problems ofthe more knowledgeable.
Increasingly, we have found that Intel employees fall into 3 camps: those that know everything
about the Internet; those that know about the Internet
but feel it’s ‘‘just like the computer bulletin boards
I’ve used from home’’; and those that have heard ofit, know that ‘‘good stuff is out there,’’ but have noidea how to proceed. Although these groups havevery different levels of understanding all indulge inbehaviors which need governance.
The experienced user may have had access to
the Internet in previous jobs or in college. That previous experience may have been in an environment
less demanding than Intel’s, since the Corporationemphasizes a stringent work ethic and places heavy
demands on employee time. Those employees familiar with bulletin boards may have no clue as to theglobal community in which they now find themselves, and those new to the ’Net just have no clue.
Each needs help understanding the environment.
Experienced users should be informed that
Internet use should indeed be work related. Wanting
to get to Usenet Newgroups to keep up with discussions on rec.whatever is not an acceptable reason for’Net access, although needing to stay current withcomp.sys.intel certainly is. Experienced users should
also understand that their role and responsibility haschanged. As students at Wherever.edu no one cared
what they said in postings, but people form opinions
of a company based on its employee’s communications. Disclaimers don’t seem to matter, no matter
how sincerely stated. Strongly offended readers
focus on ‘‘intel.com’’ in mail and article headers.
Half-way knowledgable users need to be educated to the ways of the Internet. These users may
be familiar with other forums of computer communication, most likely PC-type bulletin boards, orProdigy/Compuserve models. These users need toknow that their postings span countries and continents, rather than a local community or even the
US. They need to learn the jargon and the context
of discussion groups. They should ‘‘lurk’’ for awhile before jumping into discussions.
Inexperienced users need all the help available.
They need to know what kinds of services areavailable, what the community is, and how tointeract with it. With these communities in mind,
the guidelines Intel provides fall roughly into those
covering technical/security issues, those covering etiquette, and those to help new users. They are broken
into categories for electronic mail, mailing lists andnewsgroups, ftp, and telnet.
The electronic mail section covers such newuser concerns as SENDING MESSAGES IN CAPITALS, use of the smiley face :-), and watching
punctuation and spelling while not criticizing others’
mistakes. Etiquette, such as letting a sender know amessage was received (especially when one cannot
respond immediately) and having a signature file, isalso defined. Issues such as taking care when sending replies, sending plain ascii text (as many Intelusers often send PC file attachments in cc:Mail), andbeing aware of system etiquette on their native system comprise the technical issues addressed. Finally
we remind users that electronic mail is unencrypted
and easily readable.
The section of the guidelines on Internet mailing lists and Usenet News groups references the section on electronic mail. This is by far the longest
section of the guidelines since all employees cansend and receive Internet mail. They are also most
likely to make mistakes in this area, although in general these mistakes will be less catastrophic than intelnet or ftp. Here, we inform users to disclaim
speaking for Intel, and that even if they do, they will
represent the company de facto through having‘‘Intel’’ in the mail header. Along with that technical warning, we direct users to watch verbosity since
many Internet sites pay by the byte, to obey copyright law, and to be careful using auto-reply featuresin mail. We also tell them to change their addresses
with mailing lists when they change accounts. There
are many guidelines covering straight etiquette:
Monitor any group you join for a while, No advertising of Intel products, Don’t re-post without permission, Summarize if you survey, Indicate quoted
material, No anonymous postings, and No postings
about that dying child in England (he got better)!
New users are cautioned to make sure the subject of
messages is clear in the Subject: line, to think about
how much time mailing lists or news groups will
absorb, to read the FAQs, to be careful of flaming,and not to go overboard if they’re flamed.
The section on ftp leans heavily toward technical issues. The only point of etiquette is that users
should type in real Internet addresses for passwords
when accessing anonymous ftp sites. The otherissues covered: do not deliberately ftp to machines
without ftp access, random net-hunting is not
approved; observe working or posted hours for ftp
sites and observe any restrictions posted at thosesites; look locally for ftp materials (where items areposted more than once); and finally don’t ftp on the‘‘off chance you’ll need the information someday.’’

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

11

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

The telnet section is even more succinct, covering posted restrictions, using only authorized ports,
not not deliberately telnetting into machines with noguest account.
There is a final section, listing a bibliographyof Internet resources for beginners. It lists Kehoe[6],Krol[7] , LaQuey[8], and Tennant, et al.[9]. Hopefully, the beginning users armed with the Guidelines,
and one of these publications, can survive on the’Net.
There is another section of the Guidelines listing behavior which is subject to disciplinary action.
Here is where our Guidelines differ most dramatically from generic Netiquette guides, since these areareas where we do more than recommend behavior.
The guidelines promise action for sending chain
letters, for using Intel equipment for personal gain,
for sending sexually or racially harassing messages,
for unauthorized attempts to break into any system(since Corporate Information Security occasionallygets authorization to attempt break-ins), theft, or
copying electronic files without permission, sendingIntel confidential materials outside of Intel, andrefusing to cooperate with a reasonable security
investigation. These guidelines were specificallyderived from the Corporate Information Security
guideline on mail and from the Human Resources
general guidelines. Since this is policy and not procedure, it does not include specific disciplinary
actions which might be taken but leaves that for
Human Resources to sort out at the time of theincident.
The guidelines were drafted by one person andsubmitted to an internal mailing list which included
the Internet Security Task Force and systemmanagers of machines which have Internet access.
This draft gathered comments from ‘‘It’s fine theway it is’’ to ‘‘Change everything about it’’. Comments were incorporated into a second draft, which
was again circulated to the group. Comments on
this draft were minor, although Corporate Information Security made a few specific requests, mosthaving to do with making implicit statements more
explicit. (Mail on the Internet is Not Secure being
the major one.) The final version was sent to theinternal mailing list of system managers for distribution to their users. It was also made available foranonymous ftp within the company.
Finally, the policy was adopted as a formalIntel Policy. We did have to get it approved byIntel’s legal staff. Now we’d had our policies
ratified.
Keeping the Barn Doors Closed
Key Lesson #9 – Policy transitions can be
hard, especially when you have to take something away.

12

Hambridge & Sedayao

Although we have drawn up new ‘‘official’’
policies, we find that it can be hard to get people totransition to them. It is especially difficult whenpeople lose privileges they once had. For example,
we would like to reduce the number of Internet
access machines at each site. Getting groups to giveup their access is not easy, especially if they have
had their own access system for several years. We
have found the best time to get people to implement
policy changes is after an incident has occurred.
While this truly is closing the barn doors after thehorses are out, it definitely prevents any more horses
from leaving. After implementing the policy onsome of the major access nodes, we have had a dropin reported incidents from them.
We need to improve our user education.
Although we have created guidelines and even anIntel Internet user guide, it is obvious to us (as indicated by gross violations of Netiquette) that thisinformation has not propagated widely. Getting
users to read and understand the policies is a major
challenge. One bright spot is a class that Intel has
created on Information Security for its employees.
Information Security is planning to include the policy in the next edition of its booklet distributed to all
employees.
Unfortunately, closing the door to the Internet
means keeping some of those resources unavailable
to Intel employees. Intel still needs to maintain acompetitive edge. In order to allow additional
access to Internet resource, we are considering andimplementing alternatives. We have implemented aninternal ftp machine, which holds internal information for the company, provides mailing list capability, and caches and mirrors external archives. This
capability allows us to fill many information needs
without having to grant full internet access to theentire company (it also helps us to conserve thebandwidth of our Internet connection). Employees
who have one-time needs can send mail to an ftpadmin account with their request and the ftp
administrator will search the Internet and mail the
results to the employee.
Key Lesson #10 – Policies exist to serve.
They should be changed when circumstances
warrant.
Many employees still find our policies limiting.
Having someone else search for you is never assatisfying as searching for something yourself.
Users have been clamoring to run Gopher, WAIS,World Wide Web clients from their own PCs. We
are looking at alternatives like proxy agents for these
services. We are also evaluating easing some of ourpolicies for WAIS and Gopher access. The Internet
is a constantly changing environment, with new services springing up all the time. We will need tomake changes to our policies, but when we do so,
we will not ignore the many lessons we learned.

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

Hambridge & Sedayao

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

800|
780|
760|
740|
*
720|
700|
680|
.
660|
640|
620|
600| T"*" = Data point*580| h"." = Estimate560| o540| u520| s*500| a480| n.
460| d440| s420|.
400| o380| f360|*
340| H.
320| o300| s*280| t260| s
.
240|
.
220|
.
200|
.
180|
.
160|
140|
*
120|
*
100|
..
80|
*
60|
.
40|
*
20|
..*...*
0|...*....*......*......*.....*.*....*...
------------------------------------------------------------------8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
Figure 1: RFC 1296, Internet Growth (1981-1991)
90000

85000

80000

75000

70000

65000

60000

55000

M
e 50000s
s 45000ag
e 40000s

Messages Per Week
Exponential Fit

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

Work Weeks since start of Internet Mail Service

Figure 2: Internet mail by week since 1987

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

13

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

Hambridge & Sedayao

Author Information

Appendix A: The Intel Guidelines

Sally Hambridge received her BA in English
from UCLA in 1970 and her MLS also from UCLA
in 1979. She worked as a contract employee for
Xerox. Joining USC/ISI in 1980, she got her firsttaste of the Internet. She moved to Atari in 1982,
then joined Intel in 1984. There, she has been
librarian, database analyst, currently runs an internal
ftp server. Reach her via U.S. Mail at Intel Corp;
SC3-15; 2880 Northwestern Parkway; Santa Clara,
CA 95052-8119. Reach her electronically atsallyh@ludwig.intel.com.
Jeff Sedayao received a B.S.E in Computer Science from Princeton University in 1986 and a M.S.
in Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. He has worked at Intel
Corporation since 1986, spending most of his timerunning Intel’s main Internet gateway. Reach him atIntel Corp; SC9-37; 2250 Mission College
Boulevard; Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119. Reach himelectronically at sedayao@argus.intel.com.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF CURRENT REVISION: 6/93
LATEST REVIEW APPROVE DATE:NEXT DATE TO BE REVIEWED:SOURCE FUNCTION: Internet Security Task Force
COORDINATOR: Internet EducationRESPONSIBLE REVIEW MANAGER: Intel Security

References

1.0 PURPOSE/SCOPE
These guidelines set the standards for appropriate behavior of an Intel employee when accessing
the Internet. These guidelines apply to all Intel
employees. Intel specifically reserves the right tomodify, change or discontinue any portion of theInternet guidelines from time to time at its sole discretion.
2.0 DEFINITIONS
Cracking – attempting to break into anothersystem on which you have no account, and istreated as malicious intent.
Netiquette – a word made from combining‘‘Network Etiquette.’’ The practice of goodmanners in a network environment.
MIME – Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension. The format for Internet mail which
includes objects other than just text.

[1] Lotor, Mark. ‘‘Internet Growth (1981-1991);
RFC 1296,’’ January 1992. Available via
anonymous
ftp
at
ftp.nisc.sri.com
rfc/rfc1296.txt.
[2] Holbrook, J. P.; Reynolds, J. K. ‘‘Site Security
Handbook; RFC 1244,’’ July 1991. Available
via anonymous ftp at ftp.nisc.sri.com
rfc/rfc1244.txt.
[3] ‘‘Acceptable Use Policy for NSFNET Backbone’’.
February 1992. Available via
anonymous
ftp
atis.internic.net
asinfosource/nsf-nren-nii-info/nsfnet/acceptableuse-policy.
[4] ‘‘Corporation for Research and Educational
Networking (CREN) Acceptable Use Policy’’.
January 1993. Available via anonymous ftp at
cren.net pub/cren-doc/cren.net_use.
[5] Von Rospach, Chuq, Gene Spafford. ‘‘A Primer
on How to Work with the Usenet Community’’.
January, 1991. Available via anonymous ftp at
ftp.eff.org pub/internet-info/usenet.etiquette.
[6] Kehoe, Brendan P. Zen and the Art of theInternet: A Beginner’s Guide. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[7] Krol, Ed. The Whole Internet: User’s Guide
and Catalog. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly &Associates, 1992.
[8] LaQuey, Tracy. The Internet Companion: A
Beginner’s Guide to Global Networking. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993.
[9] Tennant, Ron, John Ober & Anne G. Lipow.
Crossing the Internet Threshold: An Instructional Handbook. Berkeley, CA: Library Solutions Press: 1993.

4.1 Behavior resulting in disciplinary action.
The following behaviors are examples ofactions or activities which can result in disciplinary
action. Because all possible actions cannot be contemplated, the list is necessarily incomplete. Thus,
disciplinary action may occur after other actions
when the circumstances warrant it. Disciplinary
actions range from verbal warnings to termination;
the severity of the mis-behavior governs the severityof the disciplinary action.
Unauthorized attempts to break into any computer whetherof Intel or another organization. (Cracking).
Using Intel time and resources for personal
gain.
Sending threatening messages.
Sending racially and/or sexually harrassing
messages.
Theft, or copying electronic files without permission.
Sending or posting Intel confidential materials
outside of Intel, or posting Intel confidential
materials inside Intel to non-authorized personnel.
Refusing to cooperate with a reasonable security investigation.
Sending chain letters through electronic mail.

14

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

3.0 GENERAL
4.0 GUIDELINES

Hambridge & Sedayao

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

4.2 Behavior considered prudent, good manners,
etiquette.
The following behaviors are recommended forsending Internet mail, participating in Internet mailing lists and Usenet groups, ftp, and telnet. Lack ofconformance may result in loss of Internet access.
These guidelines have been gleaned from a varietyof Internet Guides. A bibliography follows theseguidelines, and we recommend you acquire one (ormore) of these guides.
4.2.1 Electronic Mail (Email)The following guidelines cover the sending ofelectronic mail outside of Intel.
MAIL ON THE INTERNET IS NOTSECURE. Never include in a Email message
anything which you want to keep private andconfidential. Email is sent unencrypted, andis easily readable.
Be cognizant of any system etiquette. The
computer on which you reside may have quotas on disk space usage. Mail takes up space.
It’s best not to save every message you
receive.
Do not attempt to send anything but plain
ascii text as mail. Recipients may not havethe ability to translate Word or WP documents.
MIME
formatmessagesareencouraged. (MIME=Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extension).
Be careful when sending replies – make sure
you’re sending to a group when you want tosend to a group, and to an individual when
you want to send to an individual. It’s best toaddress directly rather than use the reply command.
Include a signature which contains methodsby which others can contact you. (Usually
your Email address.)
Let senders know you’ve received their mail,even if you can’t respond in depth immediately. They’ll need to know their mail hasn’t
gotten lost.
Watch punctuation and spelling.
Remember that the recipient is a humanbeing. Since they can’t see you, they can’ttell when you’re joking. Be sure to include
visual clues. Convention indicates the use of
the smiley face. :-) (Look sideways).
DO NOT SEND MESSAGES ALL IN CAPITALS. It looks as if you’re shouting. Use
capitals for emphasis or use some other symbol for emphasis. That IS what I meant.
That *is* what I meant.
4.2.2 Internet mailing lists and Usenet News Groups.
All the guidelines covering Email should apply
here as well.
Actively disclaim speaking for Intel. Notethat if you use an Intel system to post an

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA

article, Intel’s name is carried along withwhat you post in (at least) the headers. The‘‘standard’’ disclaimers attached to many articles are meaningless if the reader finds thearticle offensive.
Remember that some people have to pay foreach byte of data they receive. Keep messages to the point without being so terse as tobe rude.
Obey copyright laws.
Be sure to change your mailing address ifyour account changes. Do not simply forward
your mail from your old account to your newone. This creates a burden on Intel machines.
Be careful using auto-reply features in mailwhen you belong to mailing lists. These
replies are often sent to the entire list, andmost don’t care that you’re on vacation.
As a new member of a group, monitor themessages for a while to understand the history
and personality of the group. Jumping right
into the discussion may make you look foolish
if you have no context.
Do not advertise Intel products. This violates
the Internet Acceptable Use Policy.
Do not re-post any messages without permission.
Avoid cross-posting whenever possible.
When not, apologize, especially if the groups
seem to have a lot of overlap. Of course,
apologize for any mistakes in posting.
Do not post personal messages to a group.
If you survey the group, post a summary.
Indicate quoted material.
Do not post any messages anonymously. Thisis viewed as bad form by the Usenet community and system managers are asked to
track down offenders. This wastes Intel’stime and resources.
Do not re-post any requests for a dying childin England to get postcards to get into the
Guiness Book of World Records. The childgot well, and the category has been removed
from Guiness.
Make sure the subject of your message isclear in the Subject: line.
Join lists or monitor newsgroups giving
thought to how much time these activities
absorb. Also for Usenet, look at thenews.announce.newusers group. It contains
good information on getting started. There
are also local Intel groups which are good for
new people.
Be sure to read the FAQs (Frequently Asked
Questions) for your group(s).
If provoked, do not send angry messages(flames) without waiting overnight. If you
still think a flame is warranted, label yourmessage with ‘‘flame on’’. If you receive aflame, don’t go overboard in reaction.
15

Horses and Barn Doors: Evolution of Corporate Guidelines

Hambridge & Sedayao

Remember that not everyone is as polite as
you are.
4.2.3 FTP
These guidelines cover file transfer protocol.
Do not ftp to any machines on which you do
not have an account, or which doesn’t advertise anonymous ftp services. Random nethunting is not approved.
Observe working hours or posted hours for ftp
sites. Most sites request you NOT ftp
between their local hours of 8-5.
Don’t ftp during your site’s prime hours as
well.
Look locally before ftping something from asite geographically remote. Your systemmanager can help you find the closest site.
Don’t ftp on the off chance you’ll ‘‘need it
someday.’’ Conversly, don’t hunt around for‘‘neat stuff’’ to ftp. If you discover that you
don’t need what you’ve ftp’ed, delete it. You
can always get it again if you discover you doneed it.
Observe any posted restrictions on the ftp
server.
Use your real username and node as yourpassword on anonymous ftp servers.
4.2.4 TELNET
These guidelines cover telnetting to remote systems.
Do not telnet to machines on which you haveno account, or there is no guest account. Do
not attempt to telnet deliberately intoanonymous ftp servers.
Observe any posted restrictions on themachine to which you’re telnetted.
Do not try to telnet into miscellaneous ports;
use only authorized ports for access.
5.0 Selected Bibliography
LaQuey, Tracy. The Internet Companion. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993.
Kehoe, Brendan. Zen and the Art of the Internet.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
Krol, Ed. The Whole Internet: User’s Guide andCatalog. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates, 1992.
Tennant, Ron, John Ober & Anne G. Lipow.
Crossing the Internet Threshold: An Instrustional Handbook. Berkeley, CA: Library
Solutions Press, 1993.

16

1993 LISA – November 1-5, 1993 – Monterey, CA