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 ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.news.adm,net.news.sa
Subject: Re: The REAL problem with USENET
Message-ID: <14049@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29-May-86 23:30:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.14049
Posted: Thu May 29 23:30:20 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 31-May-86 05:27:34 EDT
References: <324@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 67
Keywords: vendetta
Xref: watmath net.news.adm:760 net.news.sa:322
Summary: yet another andromeda strain

In article <324@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU
(Dave Bloom) practices a different kind of net.abuse:

>today a student brought to my attention a posting by
>weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU message id <14003@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> which
>consisted of 126 lines of text, 63 of which were delimited by ">".
>(The posting appears in net.jokes)

Do I smell a VENDETTA?  50% is rather *good* for net.jokes with all
the puns and one-line alternate punchlines and wry comments, etc.
And 50% is a rather typical quoting level in many newsgroups, from
net.politics to net.mail to net.news.group etc. etc.  Yet somehow
this student managed to find MY posting as the example of idiotic
abuse.  Do I smell a rat?

>This is not the first time this person has posted mega-line quote postings
>to this newsgroup, nor is he the only one.

Yes, I'm not the only one.  But it's a rather amazing coincidence how
you or the student involved happened to overlook the 90+% quoted
material examples in net.jokes, or my numerous wholly original articles
in net.jokes, for that matter, isn't it?  No, it's not a coincidence?

>                                           I suggest that the success of this
>network depends in part on the ability of System Administrators to keep a
>handle on idiots like this, educating or revoking their net privilages if
>they continue their ways.

Our local SA, while not approving of all of my postings, has stated
publicly and privately that he sees no reason to revoke my privileges.
So please don't waste my local SA's time with generic complaints.  He
has got much better things to do, I'm sure.

Tell me, is it worth my time sending e-mail to your SA about how you
use the net for vendettas?

>                          Furthermore, if a site refuses to police their own
>users, the nearest backbone site should simply cut them off until the problem
>is rectified.

If you want to get rid of all of the 50+% quoted material stuff, you
will solve the problem of too much traffic.  You will also eliminate
much of the known network.  Any particular reason you used *me* as
an example?  I can guess ...

>If you see this type of behavior in a particular user's postings,
>and it continues after sending him personal mail, ....

Do you send e-mail to half the known net world?  Did you even send ME
any e-mail before launching into your public vendetta?

>"What do you think?.... We'd like to know."

What do I think?  I think you ought to e-mail me actual examples of
my alleged abuse, and tell me just what about it is abuse, instead
of wasting the net with this generic vendetta nonsense.  And don't
tell me you thought my posting wasn't funny, ergo stop posting.  I
couldn't care less what your sense of humor is.

The real problem with the net is rather obvious: the net is falling
apart with too many users and too much traffic, and yet the net is
STILL growing rather rapidly.  Too much quoting is just a constant
doubling factor or so in volume.  That's only an amplification, not
the genuine problem.  Even stupid vendettas like yours are a rather
trivial net.problem in comparison.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720