Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ginger.acc.com!anise!pst
From: pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: obnoxious mail
Message-ID: <1989Oct15.165938.25103@ginger.acc.com>
Date: 15 Oct 89 16:59:38 GMT
References: <2024@convex.UUCP> <1989Oct13.172720.3353@jose.uucp> <5594@videovax.tv.tek.com>
Sender: news@ginger.acc.com (USENET News System)
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Lines: 23

bart@videovax.tv.tek.com (Bart Massey) writes:
>One thing that could conceivably help (albeit only slightly) is for all the
>sophisticated posters to alt.sources (especially the ones actually posting
>sources :-) to be careful to always put
>	Followup-To: alt.sources.d

Unfortunately, the messages that usually cause the most followups are
things like "Does anyone know where I can get the latest source for rogue?"

In a perfect world, we could have every news system administrator place
a recording file explaining what alt.sources is for before allowing people
to post to it.  B news has this feature in postnews, but no where else.

All in all,  my vote is for retroactive censorship.  Unfortunately, last
time that was tried,  there was a well deserved flamefest. :-(

The only ways that sort of thing would be acceptable is if a major group
of individuals banded together and agreed that non-source messages posted
OR cross-posted to alt.sources would be cancelled and returned to their
original author.  (i.e. send out a cancel message and send the original
message back to the author saying that s/he should repost it elsewhere)

So, now it comes back to "do we want alt.sources.martial-law" :-)