hestenes@sdcsla.UUCP (Eric Hestenes) (09/29/85)
> REF: Msg by Jack H. Smith on classified ads in mail.
What exactly is an unwanted ad?
Is it a For Sale ad, or is it a request for the latest version of MODEM ?
Is it and ad that implies exchange of cash, or exchange of floppies?
Is this group therefore just for technical info, and not a place to
connect with other users?
It seems silly to forbid most ads for personal entities ( not commmercial
entities ) because they mostly involve give and take between legitimately
interested parties. The primary assumption of the "personal" ad here is that
the ad will be used on one occasion, e.g. to get rid of your cpm system.
Abuses therefore include only those people who try to get rid of more than
a few of an item ( "I've got 300,000 cpm systems to get rid of and a special
rate for net people" ).
the whole point of using the net is that it allows you to interact with people
with a common interest. If you take out the common interest variable by
placing the ad in a general-purpose mailing group, then you defeat this
purpose.
Ads that did not relate to cpm *would* be objectionable.
eric
[ these views are my own, not the views of my employer. ]
arpanet: hestenes@nprdc.ARPA
other: ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!hestenes or hestenes@sdcsla.UUCPedelheit@MITRE.ARPA (Jeff Edelheit) (10/03/85)
Eric - Since I started the discussion, I'd like to reply to your comments. There were several reasons for the establishment of the ARPANET. First, and foremost, was to develop the concept of packet switching. Once you could do that, it seemed that a logical use was to foster communications of technical issues between interested parties. Requests for help in bringing-up the latest version of a package (proprietary or public domain) is valid. Comments on the use of a proprietary object (software, hardware) are valid, as well, in my opinion, the experiences had with a commercial vendor (I have had a bad experience with XYZ, Inc). All of these topics allow for the passing of information between interested parties. I, for one, would like to know that if you buy a product from XYZ for either employment/research or personal-related work, the kind of support you might get from the vendor. The ARPANET was not intended for use as an advertising medium for either commercial concerns or individuals to sell goods and/or services. My comments are based on the idea that ARPANET is a DoD-funded activity, not funded and supported by the private sector. The above comments are strictly personal and do not reflect those of either my employer, DoD or any other government agency. Jeff Edelheit (edelheit@mitre.arpa)
ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID.ARPA (10/07/85)
For what it's worth... I concur with Jeff's comments on inappropriateness of private or any other ads on the ARPANet. (I'm sure DoD is vastly reassured and encouraged by that.) But I would hate to lose the ties/links with those other nets that work with us on the ARPANet who DO permit these adds. Regrettably, some people's distribution schemas will shoot ads across to us .. a good application for AI maybe? To filter them out? Any messages with "FOR SALE", "CHEAP", "SUCH A DEAL"? Regards, David Kirschbaum ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID (and this net is my ONLY affiliation with the Govt except for my retirement check and income taxes, so no disclaimers are required.)
hestenes@sdcsla.UUCP (Eric Hestenes) (10/07/85)
> Eric - Since I started the discussion, I'd like to reply to your comments. > information between interested parties. I, for one, would like to know that > if you buy a product from XYZ for either employment/research or > personal-related work, the kind of support you might get from the vendor. I don't know what you mean here. > The ARPANET was not intended for use as an advertising medium for either > commercial concerns or individuals to sell goods and/or services. I agree. However, part of the problems being encountered stem from the fact that arpanet people want to share *extensively* with non-arpa people. This implicitly implies an exchange of information that goes beyond purely military activities. If you throw out many ads, you're throwing the clothes out with the bathwater. Essentially, I agree that ads, under the proclaimed goals of arpa, are against the rules. However, banning some ads will certainly harm the goals of arpa, namely, increased, effective interaction with the defense support community ( note, not only the dod itself, since if this were the goal they could cut the lines or use the darpa ( not arpa ) network. ) When I post an ad to a non-arpa newsgroup, is it my fault that someone automatically forwards it to every defense site? No, as long as i am not violating the rules of the local newsgroup, i can't be to blame. Rather, it is the group of arpa folks who crave and subcribe to this newsgroup that have asked for extra baloney. Of course, when the ads violate non-arpa standards, then the poster is to blame. But that debate also belongs to the users of the lan, not the incidental subscribers from the arpanet. I hope i haven't infuriated to many generals by writing this stuff, since it is fairly political by nature. Can we agree to disagree? I still think that no matter what, one must abide by the rules of the community of users, and that there is a place for compromise for mutually benefitting parties. ------------ Eric Hestenes arpanet: hestenes@nprdc.ARPA other: ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!hestenes or hestenes@sdcsla.UUCP [ all opinions are my own and are not related to those of my employer ]
WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Frank J. Wancho) (10/16/85)
Eric,
When I post an ad to a non-arpa newsgroup, is it my fault that
someone automatically forwards it to every defense site? No, as
long as i am not violating the rules of the local newsgroup, i
can't be to blame. Rather, it is the group of arpa folks who
crave and subcribe to this newsgroup that have asked for extra
baloney.
You have it backwards. For the record, I started INFO-CPM at MIT-MC
as an ARPANET mailing list spinoff of INFO-MICRO on 29 August 1980.
The uucp newgroup was subsequently created to subscribe to this list.
The same sequence occurred earlier when I resurrected INFO-MICRO after
it had become dormant for about a year. There are several other
newsgroups with similar ARPANET origins, such as HUMAN-NETS, the first
digest format mailing list and SF-LOVERS.
One of the reasons that several mailing lists went to digest format
was to filter out such for-sale messages to save the list from being
disbanded. Over the years, both INFO-CPM and INFO-MICRO lists have
been occassionally hit with for-sale messages, with the subsequent
flurry of messages reminding people of the restrictions imposed on the
ARPA community and redirecting the poster to the apparently little
known and used for-sale or wanted newsgroups. At times, there is even
a suggestion that these lists be converted to digest format to filter
for-sale messsages. Unfortunately, no one wants to volunteer as the
burnout rate for moderators of high-volume lists is also high.
You ask if we can agree to disagree. The answer is no. For sale
message to newsgroups such as INFO-CPM and INFO-MICRO will not be
tolerated. For-sale messages leaking into what is now called DDN
(Defense Data Network) is quite a serious matter. There is mention of
it in netiquette, which every potential poster to a newsgroup should
read. The consequences on the DDN side if users from a particular
host do not observe this restriction is to pull their connection from
the net. This has never actually happened, but it has come close on
more than one occassion in the early years. The consequences on the
uucp side is to drop the gateway. We do not wish to do that. But if
you insist on ignoring our restrictions, we have no choice.
--Frankhestenes@sdcsla.UUCP (Eric Hestenes) (10/18/85)
> --Frank says: > > You have it backwards. For the record, I started INFO-CPM at MIT-MC > The same sequence occurred earlier when I resurrected INFO-MICRO after > it had become dormant for about a year. There are several other > newsgroups with similar ARPANET origins, such as HUMAN-NETS, the first I don't debate the order of events or event the role of the arpanet in fostering interest in various areas. You win that battle, though you don't win them all in this area. > You ask if we can agree to disagree. The answer is no. For sale > message to newsgroups such as INFO-CPM and INFO-MICRO will not be > tolerated. For-sale messages leaking into what is now called DDN > (Defense Data Network) is quite a serious matter. There is mention of Why is it serious? Or rather, to whom is it serious to? > it in netiquette, which every potential poster to a newsgroup should Which i have read. > read. The consequences on the DDN side if users from a particular > host do not observe this restriction is to pull their connection from > the net. This has never actually happened, but it has come close on > more than one occassion in the early years. The consequences on the > uucp side is to drop the gateway. We do not wish to do that. But if > you insist on ignoring our restrictions, we have no choice. I'd really like to hear a definition of net.micro.cpm that doesn't include INFO-CPM. Are they one and the same group? Or are they different? This issue goes beyond ad postings. The meat of it is, who calls the shots. Does arpanet call the shots in usenet newsgroups? It appears so. If this is the case, then let's just admit it once and for all. Also, if this group is gateway'd to arpa, why isn't it called fa.info-cpm rather than net.micro.cpm. Or even better, mail.info-cpm? On usenet, this *is* the ettiquite. Or am I mistaken? Overall, you totally miss the point. If a usenet newsgroup allows ads ( e.g. na.for-sale ) and those ads are forwarded all over the DDN, who ( as a result ) deserves to be yanked off of the net - the poster or the person who made the connection? It's a chicken or the egg problem, except among certain net historians and finger pointers. ------- The answer obviously lies in negotiation and observing the tendancies that will best help *both* newsgroups. ------- And it is here that I think we should agree to disagree on . I think limited ads are useful, even for arpanet types, and certainly for non-arpa types. This is a *philosophical* stance, not a *political* one. Politically, you guys win. After all, Mr DoD pays my paycheck also. ( After i've paid him, of course ). Believe me, I know the rules and try to abide by them. But the issue over whether there is a legitimate advantage in terms of communication in using one forum versus the other is just not settled! You don't decide what is best, you explore and find out! Just like with television and radio, it is not possible to foresee all the ways a medium may be used. I personally would like to see many, many more people use networks like this if only for the reason that it makes certain kinds of activities easier to accomplish. And I don't think that this can happen without cost, but what other major technologies didn't get started in the defense sector? I am pro-technology and pro-effective communication, not anti-arpa. Peek at the larger issue, rather than the most obvious ( and redundant ) interpretation. But aside from the noise here, this discussion was old before it started. I give up. No hard feelings, I hope. eric --- I'm thankful to say that these opinions have nothing to do with those of my employer. They are mine only.
W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA (Keith Petersen) (10/19/85)
Eric, there is a bottom line to all this. If the ads continue, the
gateway between net.micro.cpm and INFO-CPM will be discontinued. I
don't think any of us want to see that. We ALL gain a lot by the free
flow of information and ideas between readers on both networks.
Many net.micro.cpm readers have told me that they value my
announcements of new public-domain software as it becomes available,
even though they cannot access SIMTEL20. They know that MOST of the
new files are available either on their local RCPM or my RCPM Royal
Oak (MI).
I suggest we terminate this discussion before someone decides to pull
the gateway. It's pointless to argue who is right.
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
uucp: ...!seismo!SIMTEL20.ARPA!W8SDZ
uucp: ...!{decvax,unc,hao,cbosgd,seismo,aplvax,uci}!brl-bmd!w8sdz
uucp: ...!{ihnp4!cbosgd,cmcl2!esquire}!brl-bmd!w8sdzDoland.PA@XEROX.ARPA (10/22/85)
Can you direct me on how to get a copy of the document "Netiquette" mentioned in your reply to Eric Hestenes. I am relatively new to the net. -----Charlie Doland <Doland.pa@XEROX.ARPA>
rbt@sftig.UUCP (R.Thomas) (10/25/85)
> Eric, there is a bottom line to all this. If the ads continue, the > gateway between net.micro.cpm and INFO-CPM will be discontinued. I > don't think any of us want to see that. We ALL gain a lot by the free > flow of information and ideas between readers on both networks. > > --Keith Petersen Why can't the gateway be moderated? This is being done for a lot of ARPAnet groups as we watch (read net.announce). The moderator would be able to forward only those articles from net.micro.cpm that s/he felt were appropriate. Needless to say, there is probably much less that originates on the ARPAnet that net.micro.cpm readers would be offended by, but that could be deleted too. Rick Thomas PS I would volunteer to do the moderation, if somebody would fix me up with an account on an ARPAnet machine that I could get to via a local phone call... ihnp4!attunix!rbt (201)-522-6062
NBaheti.es@XEROX.ARPA (10/27/85)
I don't think that a moderated system is the answer to the problem. On the Xerox system we don't get many (we get a few but not enough to bothersome) ads because we have mailing lists intended for them a- lone. There is a JunkMail and WantAds list for those who are interested in receiving the mail. This is probably the best solution, because it keeps all parties satisfied. --Arun Baheti NBaheti.es@Xerox