Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!gatech!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: A serious dilemma for the net
Message-ID: <29839@bbn.COM>
Date: 19 Sep 88 20:51:58 GMT
References: <7106@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 28

In article <7106@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes:
}This problem might be solved if the management at the Portal System would
}simply replace the "XPortal-User-Id:" line with the user's real name.  This
}situation would perhaps force a poster to use more discretion prior to
}posting, knowing that his or her *real* name would be attached to the 
}posting.

  This is, at best, a bit difficult to arrange and certainly an untenable
  net.precedent.  You may object to "Inquisitor" handles, but point of fact
  no one knows _anything_ about anybodys name around the net.  I suppose one
  could argue that "net pseudonyms" are to be verboten, but I'm not sure how
  one would enforce that or what penalty might be invoked.  There are the
  well-known ones (_hobbit comes to mind right away), plus the virtually
  useless ones ("From" field is "ajport@<someplace>", with the signature just
  saying "aj" -- so who IS that?) -- will we get to (or have to) vote on
  whether a particular net identity is "acceptable"?

  Perhaps it is enough simply to complain to the sysop and just require
  that sysops know who maps into the various net handles for postings from
  that site, and you can always contact the sys admin if you have a
  complaint.

  This _may_ have been posted by.... (if such a person actually exists at
  all):

   __
  /  )                              Bernie Cosell
 /--<  _  __  __   o _              BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238
/___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_             cosell@bbn.com