ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (08/11/85)
Here's my odd notion for how to ensure that "net.general" is used correctly: allow anyone to cancel any article posted to "net.general." According to its charter in "mod.newslists", "net.general" is supposed to be used for "*Important* and timely announcements of interest to all." So: if you see a "net.general" article that isn't of interest to you, then the article is not of interest to all and you should feel perfectly comfortable in cancelling it, since it was incorrectly posted to the group. Note that doing this will also discourage cross postings to net.general, since posters who do so open themselves to the possibility of cancellation of their articles. This solution also avoids singling out any individuals as authority figures-- all users are created equal. -- UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (08/13/85)
In article <5204@elsie.UUCP>, ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes: >allow anyone to cancel any article posted to "net.general." Takes just one crackpot (any volunteers? I will... (-:) to kill net.general articles this way. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the | at&t computer systems division | s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | | "go for it" | Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy -------------------------------- or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy
howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (08/13/85)
> Here's my odd notion for how to ensure that "net.general" is used correctly: > allow anyone to cancel any article posted to "net.general." I don't think this would be appropriate for any user to do. It seems that some users would enjoy cancelling articles just for the fun of it. But restricting this to the news suser() could make this a useful function. Comments?
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/14/85)
[it was suggest that *anybody* be allowed to cancel net.general articles] > I don't think this would be appropriate for any user to do. It seems that > some users would enjoy cancelling articles just for the fun of it. If you added a "Cancel-Votes:" header (just what we need, more per-article overhead, right?), everytime somebody tried to cancel the article, you just bump up the vote count; when it reaches a threshold, you blow the article away all-together. Of course, this only works for tracing an article along a single path, so isn't much use with the current Usenet topology and it diffusion model of message passing. Just a random thought; fell free to forget I mentioned it. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/15/85)
> But restricting this to the news suser() could make this a useful function. > Comments? Sounds like a good idea... I wouldn't mind having that power, however terrified I would be about using it. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (08/24/85)
The proposal on the floor: allow anyone to cancel any article posted to "net.general." > . . .some users would enjoy cancelling articles just for the fun of it. > But restricting this to the news suser() could make this a useful function. > Comments? > Sounds like a good idea... I wouldn't mind having that power, however > terrified I would be about using it. Sorry. . .if you want only responsible users to cancel articles, limiting the power to suser()s doesn't work. Some suser()s are irresponsible; some responsible users aren't suser()s. > Takes just one crackpot (any volunteers? I will... (-:) to kill net.general > articles this way. 1. Crackpots can already kill net.general articles (using forgery techniques). 2. It's also true that crackpots can currently POST articles; should we therefore not allow anyone at all to post articles? 3. Currently, the bulk of the energy of network crackpots goes into posting articles; the effects of the crackpots' work is to increase both phone bills and the amount of time it takes folks to get through news groups. I for one would be happy to channel crackpot energies into article cancellation, since this would REDUCE phone bills and junk news. > If you added a "Cancel-Votes:" header (just what we need, more > per-article overhead, right?), everytime somebody tried to cancel the > article, you just bump up the vote count; when it reaches a threshold, you > blow the article away all-together. Nah. . .some crackpot would simply post multiple cancellations. > Brilliant! I second!! Well. . .finally an opinion I can agree with 100%. :-) Given the reluctance to give "anyone" the power to cancel articles, perhaps each site might maintain a list of "wise guys" whose cancellations of "net.general" articles would be heeded. A back-door way to do this would be to have an entry in the "/usr/lib/news/sys" file of the form: wiseguys:!all::mark@cbosgd.UUCP,root@all,!all@all.ARPA The poster of the cancellation of a "net.general" article could be "ngmatch"ed against the "wiseguys" list to determine whether or not to accept the cancellation. Cleaner implementations are, of course, possible. -- UUCP: ..decvax!seismo!elsie!ado ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.ARPA DEC, VAX and Elsie are Digital Equipment and Borden trademarks