Xref: utzoo news.admin:14900 news.software.b:8114 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 16:28:13 GMT References: Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 34 brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) writes: > From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) > If C News wishes to be pedantic about the headers, it should report its > findings to someone who can do something about it. If it can't send its > little pedantic reports to someone who can do something about the problem, > then it shouldn't be pedantic. > > It DOES, in the form of daily reports No, it DOES NOT. The daily reports are not sent to someone who can do something about the problem; they are sent to someone who can ask someone else to do something about the problem. There is an important difference, which we can sum up by observing that the larger the number of humans involved in propogating a message, the less reliable the propogation is. > --the problem is that everyone "can" > do something about it, just not everyone *wants* to. If your upstream > site does want to, then problem solved; if he or she doesn't, oh well. Right. And I'm saying that it is wrong to make correct operation of the net depend unnecessarily on every system administrator being competent and having the good will to send off warnings by mail. > If they are clearly stated *wrong* positions, why not continue to take > pot-shots at them? > > Wrong by whose standards? Yours? General software engineering principles. mathew