Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!topaz!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!felix!scgvaxd!trwrb!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Netiquette
Message-ID: <2902@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jul-86 15:49:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2902
Posted: Fri Jul 25 15:49:17 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jul-86 21:19:04 EDT
References: <926@tekig5.UUCP> <14980@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica
Lines: 47

In article <14980@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Matthew P. Wiener writes:
>Specifically,
>before sending, but after the article is written, the software should query
>newsgroup by newsgroup what its status is.  The responses [yfn] would mean:
>    y	Yes, post to this newsgroup.
>    f	Followups should still be directed to this newsgroup.
>    n	No, this newsgroup is inappropriate.
>
>The default "Followup-To" line, in case all groups get a y/n response, would
>be the first group only.  (That is currently done by some posting software,
>I've been told.)

The idea has some merit.  I'm just not sure how effective it would be.
The people who already conscienciously edit the Newsgroups: and Followup-To:
lines would be irritated by the extra overhead and remove the check.  The
people who don't will just blast through with carriage returns, or use the
version the former people deleted the check from.

The alternative is, horror of horrors, education.  This can happen at
several levels.  The netiquette document is the first, hopefully.  Next
comes all the comments one sees such as "I've directed followups to net.foo
to save wear and tear on net.bar."  Then there are flames one gets for
blowing it.  Lastly, the rn/Pnews system could put out a suggestion to
think about the newsgroups, like it currently suggests that the quoted
article be trimmed down.  I hesitate to add more verbosity to rn/Pnews,
but I also hesitate to make the good guys pay for the sins of the bad guys.

Maybe what we need is a poster that analyzes long-term posting patterns.
If the guy NEVER cuts down the newsgroups line, or trims down the quoted
text, it starts jawboning.  If that does no good, it starts asking questions.
If that does no good, it (secretly) solicits flames from the net.gods.
If those do no good, it starts adding nasty notes to the outgoing messages.
If those do no good, it starts taking the initiative for trimming things
down itself.  Shades of junker!  The difference being that it is junked at
the source, and is junked everywhere, including the posting machine, so the
guy knows it.  Then we could delete his .newsrc.  His .cshrc!  His login!!
The SA's favorite game!!!  Etc.          1/2 :-)

Of course, this still doesn't prevent him from deleting the check.  And
maybe he's never been in a position where he ought to have chopped down the
newsgroups, so we've just screwed an innocent.

There, you now have some non-null feedback, at least in terms of verbiage.
Action will stay in the null category, without more consensus.

Larry Wall
sdcrdcf!lwall