Xref: utzoo alt.sources.d:1636 alt.config:4033 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d,alt.config Subject: Re: PLEASE post only sources to alt.sources Message-ID: <1991Mar18.092948.13036@robobar.co.uk> Date: 18 Mar 91 09:29:48 GMT References: <1991Mar9.022240.27214@wolves.uucp> <23524@well.sf.ca.us> Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 22 Jef Poskanzer writes: > How about it? What if alt.sources was moderated, with the moderators > address pointing to an auto-replyer that sends back a little blurb? In order to prevent the rash of complaints similar to those we've had in alt.hackers, you'd need an *additional* fallback address which is documented in the blurb. Just because current Unix systems let you forge approval doesn't mean that all news systems will necessarily continue to do so, and some public access systems (like one I used to run :-( ) don't give the user adequate access. The fallbnack address could either be an auto approval gateway that checks for source (e.g. to make sure the Subject: like has no Re: and that the source text contains the string "THIS IS SOURCE, DAMMIT" or something like that.) or, if you don't trust this approach, to provide a real human volunteer moderator. Yes, this means that those who can't forge get a delay. I think this is a reasonable compromise. But I'm not volunteering to be the moderator. Mail to the UKNet is far too expensive. -- Ronald Khoo +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)