Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!hao!gatech!udel!princeton!mind!romero
From: romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Bad placing of Atari ST binarie
Message-ID: <1975@mind.UUCP>
Date: 4 Mar 88 01:56:40 GMT
References: <1402@water.waterloo.edu> <11400011@silver>
Organization: Cognitive Science, Princeton University
Lines: 25
Summary: Whinny...

In article <11400011@silver>, ferneau@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:

< (a reasonable defense of unmoderated postings...)

This is a pretty obvious point, at least from where I'm standing...or
maybe it's just my New Yorker paranoia showing...  but has it occurred
to any of those of you who are pushing for the unmoderated group that
there will be a real problem with Trojan horses getting posted?

Now, granted moderation has in the past introduced unreasonable delays
into the distribution process, but as I see it malicious postings of
dangerous programs should be a real concern of those of you who want
unmoderated postings.  A moderator isn't just a bureaucratic bottleneck
for postings; he or she serves as "point-man" for the community, going on
ahead, trying out new stuff, and maybe getting a fried hard disk for all
the trouble.

I believe "ferneau" said something about all posted software being
reasonably well-tested before posting.  Who do you propose to take over
this job in an unmoderated group? If we could trust everyone else out
there, an unmoderated group might work out. 
But we can't. 

Anyway, I've said my bit, and will shut up now.   
-Antonio Romero      romero@mind.princeton.edu
	"Trust, but verify."