Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!jte From: jte@psuvax1.psu.edu (Jon Eckhardt) Newsgroups: soc.women,news.admin Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no Batwoman (And defense of nntp) Message-ID: <2886@psuvax1.psu.edu> Date: Sat, 29-Aug-87 06:28:58 EDT Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2886 Posted: Sat Aug 29 06:28:58 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 07:55:19 EDT References: <2073@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <0@novax.nowhere.nodom> Reply-To: jte@psuvax1.psu.edu (Jon Eckhardt) Organization: Penn State University, University Park, PA Lines: 25 Keywords: censorship silencing Summary: If wishes were Inews, we all would be buggy. Xref: mnetor soc.women:6735 news.admin:941 In article <2242@bellcore.bellcore.com> nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) writes: >In article <20326@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: >>In article <2178@bellcore.bellcore.com> nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard) writes: >> >>Would you consider unauthorized access to a privately owned NNTP port >>for the purpose of anonymous intimidation an activity that "should >>bring down *administrative* controls?" > >Yes -- by the owner of the port -- not the net as a whole. There is no real nead to have anonymous nntp postings if that is what is getting people so upset. If you are running nntp you can make the default entry no no (in other words read/xfer = no post = no) in your nntp_access file (or whatever you call it on your node) and then no machines execpt the machines that you designate in the access file will be able to talk with the nntp server. The real bug is not in nntp though, it is in inews. Going after nntp is like trying to make arms deals with the soviets, it sure looks like you are doing something usefull but you are not really attacking the real problem. --Jon Eckhardt # jte@psuvax1.psu.edu <- ARPA Phone: 237-1901 (Home) # # jte@psuvax1 <- BITNET Looks like Reganomics # # !psuvax1!jte <- UUCP worked! #