Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gatech.CSNET Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!spaf From: spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: c*nc*l <148@psueea.UUCP> and many others Message-ID: <1935@gatech.CSNET> Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 10:41:52 EST Article-I.D.: gatech.1935 Posted: Tue Nov 12 10:41:52 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 03:59:38 EST References: <134@desint.UUCP> <5667@amdcad.UUCP> <386@wuphys.UUCP> <721@ecsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) Distribution: net Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech Lines: 65 Let us all accept as a "given" that there are a lot of bozos out there who post all sorts of inappropriate nonsense to net.sources. What, then, do we do about it? Posting faked cancellation messages doesn't help. The articles have already appeared and been circulated, adding to the load, and have already been read and/or archived at many sites. Since the cancellation is faked and from a different site, its propagation pattern will be different -- leading to the cancellation arriving before the offending article in some places, and leading to the cancellation arriving weeks after the article in others. Last of all, the cancellation messages add to the overall traffic and load on the network -- N.G. The first thing that could be done is to encourage your users to post to mod.sources. Use it yourself, in fact, rather than posting to net.sources. I don't bother to even read net.sources anymore because of the junk and the volume, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I also don't buy people's arguments about net.sources is for "less mature" software which shouldn't be posted to mod.sources. Hell, I'm *not interested* in less mature software which someone just posted without documentation, won't unshar, and has more bugs than I'd care to think about. The second suggestion I have is to prepare a letter ahead of time that reads something like: This reply is about your recent posting to the net.sources newsgroup. I believe that your posting was inappropriate for the stated purpose of the newsgroup: publishing source code and documentation. Requests for copies of source code should be posted in net.wanted.sources. Bug fixes and enhancements to already-posted code should be submitted to net.sources.bugs. Requests for clarification of posted items should be directed *by mail* to the author(s) of the software in question. If you have not already done so, read the items in the newsgroup net.announce.newusers. If you have read those articles, please read them again. It is very clearly stated in a number of places that net.sources is *not* for discussion or requests. You are being rude by not observing established net etiquette for net.sources. You also should consider cancelling your article. Then, every time you read "net.sources" and stumble across a posting that you feel is not appropriate to the group, simply "reply" and include the form letter. "cc" a copy to "root" at the site where the poster is. Imagine someone getting 50 copies of such mail. Imagine what the sys admin will do upon receiving 50 copies of such mail. Or 100 copies. Or 200. It won't cure the problem entirely, but I bet if enough of you want to do it, it will sure cut down on the number of repeat offenders. Just remember to be polite. Assume that the person on the other end is simply ignorant and not a jerk. Being rude will likely cause the person to respond in kind, and you will accomplish nothing worthwhile. In fact, the person may post again simply to show that s/he won't be intimidated. This method works in other groups, too. -- Gene "wedding done, thesis to go" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf