Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!pyramid!octopus!avsd!childers From: childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Maps Subverted Summary: solve it now or it'll be expensive later Keywords: short term, long term, database, sabotage, commercialism, bullshit Message-ID: <521@avsd.UUCP> Date: 22 Feb 89 21:14:47 GMT References: <405@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> <399@lakart.UUCP> <3661@phri.UUCP> <453@avsd.UUCP> <2844@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <465@avsd.UUCP> <2898@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Reply-To: childers@avsd.UUCP (Richard Childers) Organization: die Edelstahlratte Lines: 109 In article <2898@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >Predatory? Again, I don't see anything predatory about the newspapers I >received. I could have probably called the company that sent them and had >my name removed if I did have a problem with it. If I had to call every junk company every time I wanted to tell them I didn't want their junk, I'd be broke. And so would you. Quit fiddling around and I'm sure you'll see that the simplest solution is for Them to get Their data from another location. >+I say that publishing the UUCP maps is inappropriate, if it's to facilitate >+profiteering. >No, I disagree there. By listing your site in a public place you have lost >that privacy. That's ugly. I refuse to accept that as a 'solution'. I would regard the Usenet, not as a place where the lowest common denominator is acceptable, but as a place where the higher common denominators might manifest, and I don't plan to change. >The very reason for the maps is to facilitate communication.....of both the >computer AND human kind. There would be no need for 90% of the data if the >only purpose was to list mail connectivity! Good. Let's see some Freedom of Information occur, along with the email addresses of the parties responsible. So I can freely address them, too, along with their being able to freely address me. If they are unwilling to submit themselves to that which they have submitted the rest of us, without first checking to see if we minded, then it would seem that something is wrong with their rationalization, in that it incor- -porates a double standard. >No, you're not alone. Perhaps you and other have stepped into a public >world without realizing it; that was, nonetheless, a choice you did make. Maybe the people who live for nothing more than money and mailing lists have made that mistake. They don't seem to be acting very public, though. More of that double standard ? >We're not talking about a commercial network (I never was); we're talking >about someone who used the network maps for a mailing list. Whether these >companies did it themselves, or someone sold a list to them, is irrelavent. >It was pointed out, if the buyer paid more than half-hour programming time, >they got ripped off (and we should be laughing). I'm not. Nobody else is, that I know of. Who cares what they paid ? Why can't you see anything beyond dollars and increased advertising ? >+Nothing stopping them from using conventional channels of advertising. As you >+pointed out, you're on a zillion different mailing lists and databases. Why >+do they have to shit in our uupond ? >It's only you and a few others who feel it's "shit" in "your" pond. Lots of >others like the material (or at least heat their homes with it) :-) Anybody dumb enough to burn coated paper deserves what they get. Most of the inks used in advertising are carcinogenic when burned. Enjoy. >Heh, here we go! A new field: > #M YES (for ok on mailing list) > #M NO (you send it, I'll bitch and/or sue 'ya :-) > >Would that satisfy everyone? This would satisfy me. But I'd rather come up with a policy that's acceptable to a visible and recognizable majority, that attempts to determine what place if any commercially-motivated broadcast traffic has on the Usenet. >I, for one, _condone_ companys using my name and address info from here for >mailings and such. I laugh at those that are stupid enough to pay for such >a list when it's freely available, but nonetheless, I don't mind getting >these things in the regular mail. I agree, it's a trivial thing to get upset about. I'm worried about the principles involved, though. I'd like to see this stopped - or resolved - in the bud. >No no no no no. You divulged your address of your own free will. No one >coerced you into doing so. You published it without a request or anything >else asking that others not use it (ie: public domain, remember?). So I've got to explicitly put an explicit notice in my map, a la public domain software, declaring what it may and may not be used for. Multiply this by several hundred thousand sites. Isn't it cheaper to evolve a policy ? >+I'd like to hear what people say about a misc.commercial newsgroup before >+I go #P'ing all over my map entry. >It already exists. It's called biz (the distribution). Ask your news >person to get it for you... I *am* the newsperson. I've never heard of any newsgroup starting with 'biz' in over three years of approximately daily reading of the Usenet, at half a dozen different sites. Maybe I'll inquire upstream. But the fact that I've never heard of it suggests how popular it is. >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) -- richard -- * Life is a batch - then you multitask ... * * * * ..{amdahl,decwrl,octopus,pyramid,ucbvax}!avsd!childers * * AMPEX Corporation - Video Systems Division, R & D *