Xref: utzoo news.admin:14774 news.software.b:8060
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed
Message-ID: <7moR331w164w@mantis.co.uk>
Date: 30 May 91 15:53:05 GMT
References: <1991May29.221015.1865@druid.uucp>
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 70

darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
> In article <10623@castle.ed.ac.uk> Paul D. Crowley writes:
> >           Various people don't seem interested in discussing
> >alternatives such as the "control" hack because they get a kick out of
> >the idea of spiteful software -- so long as it doesn't happen to them.
> 
> It doesn't happen to them because they are running software that checks
> the message before sending it out to the cold hard world of Usenet
> connectivity.  Of course the user should be coddled.  No one that
> I have seen supports the notion of unfriendly user interfaces.  The
> argument is that the software that interfaces with the user is the
> place where this stuff should be checked.  If you are writing posting
> software you should check everything the user enters to make sure
> that it conforms to the relevant specifications.  No one on the "CNEWS
> IS RIGHT" side suggests otherwise.  It's the "CNEWS MUST BE WHINED AT
> AND DIE" group that thinks that the posting software can slough that
> stuff onto software running 6 or 7 hops away.

Where the hell do you get that idea?  I am *not* saying that posting software
should be allowed to produce bad articles. I agree entirely that broken
software should be fixed.

My argument is that there will always be bad articles which get past the
posting software. There is such a diversity of posting software that this is
inevitable. Also, any software which allows the user to edit headers is
asking for trouble in this respect.

I fixed the broken software I was using as soon as I found out about the
error. I would expect anyone else to do the same. THE POINT is that I didn't
find out about the error for weeks, because C News made no attempt to tell me
that I had failed its unnecessarily stringent requirements.

There are also the additional points that:
- if correcting an error is possible, it should be corrected;
- if *you* can safely ignore an error, you should do so.

>                                               That's like arguing
> that print spoolers should correct spelling because users make
> spelling mistakes.

No, it's like arguing that Postscript printers should report an error when
someone sends them an ASCII file, rather than just silently losing the whole
of the input and leading the user to wonder what exactly is going on.

We have a printer here at work which silently junks any page containing
bitmap data sent in the wrong format. I think that said printer is profoundly
badly designed.

> So, the $64K question:  Who or what should take responsibility for
> the correctness of news headers?
>    A) The novice poster that probably hasn't even heard of an RFC.
>    B) The software that injects the message into the net.
>    C) The software that transports the message around the world.
> 
> CNews suggests that the right answer is B.  It's detractors claim that
> C is right but they seem to argue that the only other alternative is A.

No, C News suggests that the ONLY answer is B; that if for some reason a bad
message has got past the posting software, then that message is fair game for
deletion. I am claiming that the answer is B *and* C.

> So, does anyone want to admit that they believe that the right answer is
> A?  If not can we at least agree that the choice is either B or C

Nope, I don't think you should be using exclusive-or there.


mathew