Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: A thought about USENET.
Message-ID: <1408@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 15:25:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.1408
Posted: Mon Jun 15 15:25:09 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jun-87 01:44:34 EDT
References: <2577@psuvax1.UUCP>
Reply-To: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry F Aguirre)
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 55
Keywords: Archive sources free-speech
Summary: Need an "Archive:" header on source postings

It has been suggested that we just ignore the non-source postings to
source groups.  I think we are all used to skipping articles that we
don't find interesting so this is a suggestion I could live with, except
for one thing.

My site, as well as many others, save the source groups.  Currently I
have to regularly go through the archive directory and delete the
extraneous postings.  I want to keep part 5 of your new editor but I
definitely DON'T want to keep somebody's request for a reposting of part
5.

Most of the people who believe they should be allowed to post discussion
and requests in the source groups seem to ignore the extra workload they
create for archive maintainers.  Before someone comments that this is
the archiver's problem not theirs, I am sure that many people are glad
to have archiving sites around when they suddenly find a need for that
software they saw posted last month.

I would like to introduce an idea that might satisfy both sides.  I
suggest that we introduce an "Archive: " header.  We then modify the
expire process so that it can expire selectively based on this keyword.
An addition to postnews would ask the poster if their article should be
marked as containing source (or announcement of source availability)
that should be permanently archived, and add the "Archive: " header. 
This would allow discussions and requests to run in parallel with source
postings and would keep me happy.

I and see two problems with this:  First is that a poster with old
software might post without the "Archive: " header.  As posting a source
is generally done by a more knowledgable user they can, if necessary,
manually add the header.  If source does go out without the header then
it is possible to contact the poster and have him repost it with the
correct header.  In this case you are dealing with a sympathetic user
and cooperation should be better.

The second potential problem is "Archive: " headers on non-source
postings.  The key point here is that this would require a deliberate
abuse by someone with no justification of ignorance or "free speech".
Most of the non-source posting are thru ignorance and are therefor fixed
by this solution.  The others are by people who are aware of the
restriction to sources only but stand on there right to "free speech". 
If some user thinks that his opinions are not only worthy of world wide
distribution in the sources group, but also should be permanently
archived using someone else's disk space then I think we have a good
case for restricting his access to the net.

I think the main point is to require the poster to explicitly mark the
posting as source rather then infer it from the news group.

					Jerry Aguirre
--
My favorite is the poster who wrote an article apologizing for his
non-source posting and how he knew better now and would never do it
again.  He posted the apology to net.sources of course.  There should
be some kind of award.