Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site normac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!normac!scott
From: scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Objection to funny header info -- objection to net.police
Message-ID: <120@normac.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 05:34:17 EST
Article-I.D.: normac.120
Posted: Wed Nov 28 05:34:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 04:01:13 EST
References: <22f826c6.708@apollo.uucp> <>
Reply-To: scott@unix.UUCP (Scott Bryan)
Organization: Normac, Lafayette, Ca.
Lines: 57

In article <about anonymous postings> <doesn't matter who> writes:

>>On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance...
>>I object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when
>>such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any
>>real attempt to conceal one's true identity. 
>>Examples:    (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore)
>>             (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe)
>>             (? @ inside a linked list)
>>These alterations make me work much harder than I should have to in order
>>to find out just where and from whom an article originated.
>>The *very* small amount of humor provided is simply not worth it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above.  It's hard enough to work this net
thing as it is.  I can also forgive, with the understanding that at the
time it seemed like the thing to do, but it's still a bother for us boobs
who barely speak "rn".

Jeff Meyer replies to <doesn't matter who>

>Well, I can only respond to this statement with two of my own:
>
>1)  While I certainly don't find all of them entertaining, I enjoy them for
>    the most part.  I don't believe that I've EVER found them annoying.
>
>2)  Since this does not alter the site, there is no problem in replying to
>    the posting.  Also, the majority of people usually include a complete
>    name and address at the end of the posting.  I might be tempted to
>    suggest this as a requirement for altering the Name/Organization, but I
>    tend to leave the pedantic restrictions to others.
>
>As to annonymous postings, it depends on the context they are in.  I have
>mixed feelings, as I make a habit of signing my articles; but posters to
>mod/net.singles or mod/net.motss may feel differently.  Again, net.police
>does not seem to be the answer -- in fact, it is being offered as a solution
>far too often in this newsgroup and others.  If this keeps up, net
>administration people will need their own security team.
>
>What do others think?
>

I also agree that it is a poor decision to judge others, so net.police
is out.  I think we should look at this network as belonging to the people
who use it, sort of like we pictured America while we were in elementary
school.

We have our own set of problems to deal with, some of which resemble
real world problems, like the net.rubbish problem.  I think how we solve
it depends on what we expect the net to do for us.

So we should agree on that first.

It seems that we are expecting everything from a bulletin board to a
professional arbritrator from the same software.  Perhaps that is where
the problem really exists.

Scott Bryan.