Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: cleaning up the net -- software solutions proposed Message-ID: <2992@nsc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 13:39:51 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.2992 Posted: Wed Jul 17 13:39:51 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 01:20:21 EDT References: <2961@nsc.UUCP> <982@sdcsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Distribution: net Organization: The Dreamer Fithp Lines: 76 Summary: In article <982@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: I'll discuss the most important issue first: > It would have rejected Chuq's article - which went out as 104 lines,including > a 5-line signature. (-: Very true. When you consider the amount of information I was covering, I think 104 lines wasn't terribly bad. What I probably should have done, and if the restriction was in place I would have, was split it into four messages and discuss each item separately. I was trying to minimize the duplicated information and verbiage that would have required. As an aside, even though it is obvious that Joel is jesting, some of my mail has taken my going over 100 lines (breaking my own 'rule') as an indictment of my ideas. I would find the ability of some people on the net to completely ignore reality amusing, if only they wouldn't be quite so abusive about it. >> 1) Site protection for the System Admin: >As proposed, I don't think this is very practical. > 1) Won't take effect until the damage is done > 2) Can easily be circumvented by a smart guy changing userid's. Actually, it is quite practical. This is not an attempt to solve the worlds problem, but only to allow an SA some way of protecting himself from people that they considers dangerous or damaging to their site. True, it won't prevent things from happening once, but it allows an SA to keep the damage from re-occuring. If a system is so uncontrolled that an abuser can flit from account to account, the SA will be able to shut off that entire site. >I don't think there's any point in adding a capability to the already >cumbersome netnews software that will never (or rarely) be used. It will be used, at least by me. First to get rid of the 'Orphaned Response headers' in a general way. Second to eat articles in groups like 'net.test'. And finally, to get rid of any rogue abusers that happen to pop up through time. Even if I NEVER have to use it, I want it around, just in case. >> 2) Article length restrictions: >Don't forget fa.all and any other "digests" It would also stop most >resume's on net.jobs. I'm sorry, I assumed both mod.all and fa.all would be excluded, but I forgot to say it explicitly. >>all messages will be restricted at the inews level to 100 lines. >Will this work? You'll still see 20-line signatures on 5 line articles. >(Rejecting long signatures might be better). Rejecting long signatures is something that can only be done on a posting site. This means that it will only be in force at sites that upgrade AND don't disable the 'feature'. There is no way to reliably limit the size of signatures one a message has been posted, so it can't be done at the backbone site. Because of this, any specific signature restriction (and I'm for that as well) has limited utility. Total length restrictions will force the truly verbose people (and I include myself in that category) to be more careful about their postings and keep the length down. It also puts an upper limit to the amount of an old article you can include and still include some new information. > >> 3) Etiquette enforcements: >> 4) Followup fan-in: >OK, but there should be some human interface provision so that if the >discussion goes to a newsgroup the reader doesn't normally follow, >(s)he can see it if (s)he wants. You'd almost want a "child" reader option >(opposite of "parent") that looks for followup articles (if already >online) and adds a subscription to the followup newsgroup so that >future followups are seen. One alternative is to perhaps do the opposite of my original suggestion: Instead of forcing a fan in of all followups, modify the headers of all messages sent through to contain the followup-to line if it is missing. This allows programs such as rn to show the reader where the messages will be going, and doesn't require any new work to allow a reader to follow the message. It is also probably easier to implement. Also, this gives the poster the ability to override the default by including their own followup-to (it would only be done if the followup-to was null) leaving a bit more freedom of action for the users. -- :From the ex-USENET fascist: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!