wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (03/25/86)
In article <805@k.cs.cmu.edu> mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Browne) writes: >If everyone thinks that the purpose of mail.bizarre is to protect "innocent" >newsgroups, I hereby disolve mail.bizarre. On with the invasion of >net.rumor! Bizarroids of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but >your chains. You have a newsgroup to win. Problem with this is that it's more likely that the net.stuffies will attempt to get rid of net.rumor. Spread out! There's lots of newsgroups to demonstrate a volume of postings in -- why limit it to one rmable group? But hey, let's keep the amusement value up at the same time! How many site administrators does it take to change a lightbulb? Another vote for net.bizarre.again! STella Calvert Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea, it's the law! Guest on Account: ...!mit-eddie!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!<LongStrangeTrip>!Taxachusetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/30/86)
>> If everyone thinks that the purpose of mail.bizarre is to protect "innocent" >> newsgroups, I hereby disolve mail.bizarre. On with the invasion of >> net.rumor! Bizarroids of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but >> your chains. You have a newsgroup to win. > > Problem with this is that it's more likely that the net.stuffies will > attempt to get rid of net.rumor. Spread out! There's lots of > newsgroups to demonstrate a volume of postings in -- why limit it to > one rmable group? Keeping with the original intent of this newsgroup, I have a rumor I'd like to present: I understand that mail.bizarre is filled with immature assholes who, despite having a mailing list to provide them with an outlet for their inane comments, want to inundate otherwise interesting newsgroups with crap. The rumor is that they think that anyone who doesn't like what THEY think is fun are "stuffies", who deserve to have net.bizarre shoved down their throats. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply Box 23, Cynosure.
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (04/10/86)
This topic started in net.rumor, but contains issues that should be of interest to system administrators: >It seems that most of the anti-weirdos are weird themselves. >Examine Gene Spafford's comments on the "net takeover". Is THAT the guy >who removed net.bizarre? And why does Andy Beals, KNOWN to be one of the >less respected people for his habit of voraciously reading any hunk of >data going through lll-crg, happen to sign off with "I'm proud to be a >CARBON-BASED lifeform!"? >So it seems that people will critcise others' faults without looking at >themselves first.. Of course "fight fire with fire" could turn into "fight >weirdness with weirdness", but that's just what the pyromaniacs/bizarroids >want, right? > Carl Greenberg *** No, wait a minute. Reading other people's mail doesn't make you anti-bizarre, it makes you slime. I'm S/A at my second site now, and I'm really concerned about what's happening to Usenet. I've sent off letters suggesting that the poster was in error on many occasions, so I guess that makes me a net.fascist. But read other people's mail? That's not net.policeman, that's net.abuse.of.root. Don't confuse the issue of privacy with the issue of following Usenet rules or being bizarre. I contributed to net.bizarre when it was going, but it rapidly degenerated into a low quality high volume newsgroup. I was sorry to see it go, but the reasons were sound. If the money to transmit all that stuff came out of your own pocket, you might feel differently. However, simply because net.bizarre is gone, doesn't mean that one can not be bizarre on occasion. (Great article, Gene.) BTW, I don't think "on occasion" means "it's OK to flood the net". How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your rights to open other people's mail? Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc -or- seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) (04/14/86)
In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your > rights to open other people's mail? I think the last word above should be E-mail, and I think it matters. We use the term "mail" and derive from that word a lot of connotations, some of which may be incorrect. I would be very angry if you opened a sealed envelope I mailed to a friend and read the contents, because our past tradiations and laws say that is illegal. E-mail is a different proposition, and we should use a different word to describe it -- at least then we'll recognize there *is* a difference and not count on connotation carry-over. I am not a system administrator but have, in the past, had root priviledges. In my opinion the system administrator does not *own* the system, any more than an appointed or elected official owns the system he/she administers, but power corrupts and a system administrator has a lot of power. I assume in time we will evolve a code of ethics for this new situation, and I hope it will follow the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either." -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (04/17/86)
In article <132@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > >How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >rights to open other people's mail? > NO -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (04/20/86)
In article <132@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >rights to open other people's mail? I'm supposed to keep the system running without looking at the files? You probably expect gynnecologists to keep their eyes closed too. -- A woman who would rather have beauty than brains because men supposedly can see better than they can think had better settle for beauty because she clearly doesn't have much in the way of brains. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (04/24/86)
In article <4697@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >> rights to open other people's mail? > >I think the last word above should be E-mail, and I think it matters. We use >the term "mail" and derive from that word a lot of connotations, some of which >may be incorrect. I would be very angry if you opened a sealed envelope >Ed Nather You are right that there is a difference between "mail" and "E-mail", but I don't think it changes the ethics of the situation. E-mail is probably somewhere between mail and telephone conversations as far as eavesdroppability (how's that for a word?) is concerned. It is considered unethical to "open" other people's telephone conversations, too. The sysop who originally spurred this conversation argued that he wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has a right to know. --MKR "There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden"
robt@molihp.UUCP (Robert L Thurlow) (05/03/86)
In article <735@mmm.UUCP> bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > > The sysop who originally spurred this conversation argued that he >wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a >justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he >be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of >arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays >his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has >a right to know. > If I use my employer's telephone for *MY* private use, I can't expect that he will always be happy with it, especially if it interferes with other uses of the phone or of my time, or if it causes other problems. I also do not expect to have my privacy guaranteed or to have total freedom of behaviour when someone else is paying the bills. It is the same as using any other resource : using the printer may be okay if I want a cheap calendar, but printing resumes is not a great survival habit. I expect my employer to be reasonable, but there are no guarantees. # UUCP : ...!ubc_vision!molihp!robt Robert Thurlow # # My thoughts are my own, and are void where prohibited by law. # # "There was something fishy aboout the butler. I think he was a # # Pisces, probably working for scale." -Nick Danger, 3rd Eye #