Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!unisoft!jef From: jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A great way of hosing the 4-line signature limit. Message-ID: <495@unisoft.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 15:43:09 EDT Article-I.D.: unisoft.495 Posted: Fri Aug 7 15:43:09 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 06:58:12 EDT Sender: news@unisoft.UUCP Reply-To: jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal Lines: 77 I found it amusing and interesting to see all the mis-interpretations of my message. By my count, there were fifteen responses, and only ONE (Roy Smith) understood what I was talking about. In paricular, three people (Rich Salz, Kyle Jones, and Rick Adams) mis-interpreted me in the same way: they thought I was complaining about the inconvenience to me personally in circumventing the posting restrictions. All three suggested that since I have the source, I simply edit it and remove the restrictions. This is an example of a syndrome I've noticed on Usenet before: inappropriate knee-jerk response. This is a Semantic Bozoism, and somewhat harder to combat than the usual Syntactic Bozoisms. "You've got the source" is the correct response to a large class of complaints in this area, and so if you don't feel like thinking too much, it's easy to mis-read the complaint and decide it fits the canned response. Here are some reasons why the response is inappropriate in this case: 1) I do NOT have the source, and don't particularly want it. We are still running News 2.10.3 here, and have no plans to switch. 2) If we were running 2.11, I could not simply edit out the restrictions since I am not the news admin at this site. 3) However, if our news admin decided to install 2.11 and leave the restrictions in, it would not affect me in the slightest. I do not over-quote articles, and I do not have a .signature (if you'd been paying attention you'd know this). No, the problem I was complaining about is caused by bozos at other sites posting stuff that I have to wade through. I could edit news source all day and the problem would still be there. What's ironic is that this is exactly the same type of problem that the restrictions were *intended* to fix. But because they were implemented without thought, they have caused at least as much bozosity as they have prevented. Yes, they have prevented some over-quoting and some over-long .signatures. Yes, they are trivial to get around if you really need to get around them. The problem is that there are multiple ways to get around them, some of which are obnoxious. For the 50% rule, the "correct" ways around the rule are to edit down the quotation or to change the quoting character; the obnoxious way is "inews fodder". For the 4-line rule, the "correct" ways are to shrink your .signature down to four lines, or to include it before posting as I do; one obnoxious way is the original subject of this series of articles. Now, what should be done instead: I have two suggestions. One, easy and heuristic: make sure people know about the "correct" way around the rules. The code that detects a transgression should reject the article and put out a message like this: You article is being rejected because your .signature file is too long. Four lines or 320 characters is considered by the network community to be the maximum reasonable size. If you can edit your .signature down to that size, you are welcome to re-submit your article. However, if you absolutely must waste network bandwidth and bore thousands of people with your over-long signature, all you have to do is include it manually before posting. People all over the world will know you are a bozo, but if that's what you want... The equivalent message for the 50% rule is left as an exercise. My second suggestion, which I like better, may be harder to implement. When a transgression is found, put out a message explaining the rule, and then ask the user whether he/she wants to violate the rule. If the answer is yes, ask again. And possibly a third time, depending on a random number. Then, if the user is adamant, go ahead and post the article. As for the asshole David S. Hayes, who had the nerve to complain about my signature: today's quote is just for you. --- Bozo the Clown Jef Poskanzer unisoft!jef@ucbvax.Berkeley.Edu ...ucbvax!unisoft!jef "But then, I reflected, the best words are often those left unsaid." [Here's the disclaimer that my company insists I use. If you have any complaints about wasted network bandwidth, send them to unisoft!donal.] "The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of UniSoft Corp, its staff, or its management."