Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: electronic vandalism
Message-ID: <428@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Oct-83 00:53:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.428
Posted: Thu Oct 20 00:53:49 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Oct-83 00:32:41 EDT
References: <647@ulysses.UUCP>, <816@drux3.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 37

It was precisely because of the possibility of such vandalism that
2.10 news was changed to make rmgroup advisory.  In 2.9 and earlier
versions of news, rmgroup actually removed the group (and all the
articles in it were thrown away.)  In 2.10, the group is not
removed, but mail is sent to the local contact who can decide
whether to remove it by hand.  If you are running 2.9 or earlier,
you probably should recreate the newsgroup (I expect a "newgroup"
will be going around soon) and get the first 4 articles from your
neighbor.  You can protect yourself against rmgroups by upgrading
to 2.10.1.

I've been out of town for a week and unable to comment publicly
on the formation of net.motss.  However, the newsgroup does exist,
and it should be given a fair chance.  While some serious reservations
were expressed, they were mostly of a hypothetical nature ("what if
some vice president gets wind of it and forces somebody off Usenet")
or local to one machine ("we won't accept or forward it here").
On the other hand, the proponents of the newsgroup handled things in
a very responsible manner and bent over backwards to address the
concerns of the net, and frankly, they have reason on their side.
The newsgroup will continue to exist unless and until it causes
serious harm to some Usenet site (such as being forced off the net)
or to Usenet as a whole.

If your site has a problem with net.motss, you have the right to
not accept or forward it.  If you do this, please make sure that
all sites downstream from you are aware of your policy, so they
will be able to make alternate routing arrangements if they really
want the newsgroup, without having to hunt down an apparently bad link.
And, please, let's act responsibly here.  As long as the gays act
responsibly, they deserve the same consideration we give the other
special interest newsgroups.  If you think gays are not worthy of
consideration by Usenet, consider that I know some gay people (whom
I respect a great deal) that do not have time for or interest in
Usenet - they are much too busy producing software that benefits us all.

	Mark Horton