smb@ulysses.UUCP (10/12/83)
From ulysses!uucpa Wed Oct 12 09:02:36 1983 Date: Wed, 12-Oct-83 09:02:19 EDT From: ulysses!uucpa (UNIX-to-UNIX Copy) Subject: rmgroup control message Message-Id: <8310121302.AA13769@ulysses.UUCP> Received: by ulysses.UUCP (3.327/3.7) id AA13769; 12 Oct 83 09:02:22 EDT (Wed) Received: by ulysses.UUCP (3.327/3.7) id AA13781; 12 Oct 83 09:02:34 EDT (Wed) To: usenet Responding-System: ulysses.UUCP Status: RO mhuxl!mhuxi!eagle!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!seismo!rochester!ritcv!rocksvax!root has requested that newsgroup net.motss be removed. You should remove it by hand Do we really need this kind of electronic vandalism on the net?
darrell@drux3.UUCP (10/12/83)
I agree. Whoever sent the cancel command had to know it would go
all over the network. We don't need this kind of behavior on the
net.
--
Darrell McIntosh, AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
(303) 538-3212, {ihnp4|hogpc}!drux3!darrelldyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (10/13/83)
I thoroughly agree. The damn control message got to my site, bbncca, and destroyed the first 4 preliminary messages to net.motss. First thing is to recompile my news software
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (10/13/83)
I agree absolutely. Net.motss was removed from my site this afternoon by rocksvax's control message. FIRST thing I'm going to do is recompile my software so this won't happen again, but six messages to the group have been lost at bbncca. If this act was due to ignorance (he claimed to be cleaning up his newsgroups to agree with the official list), then it should be reemphasized that net-wise deletion of a newsgroup should only be done after deliberation with the net, probably within net.news.group, regardless of the contents of the official list. If this act was deliberate provocation, it should be reemphasized that this is strictly anti-social behavior, and will be dealt with appropriately. Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (10/14/83)
I appreciate Mark's remarks, and am sure that they will have a strong impact on the integration of 'net.motss' into the mainstream of USENET groups. Still, I must take issue with one of his comments, doubtless well-meaning. I am presenting this publically, because I feel that they are shared by other members of the net. To wit: "...As long as THE GAYS [my emphasis] act responsibly, they deserve the same consideration we give the other special-interest newsgroups..." No one has said anything about a particular sexual preference being a prerequisite for submissions to this newsgroup. No one proposing this newsgroup has made any statement about his own sexual preference. The comment reflects a certain "Us vs. Them" polarity, which is unnecessary, unfounded, and ultimately damaging to one of the goals of the net-- mutual understanding through better communication. Would one say for 'net.women': "...As long as the women act responsibly..."?? Hardly. What's more, articles posted by men outnumber those by women! I should hope that the same flouting of categories holds for 'net.motss'. It is, of course, a forum for the discussion of gay issues. But there is room for everybody within its circumscribed goals. /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer decvax!genrad!wjh12!bbncca!sdyer
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (10/17/83)
Steve Dyer's comments are well taken. I trust you all know what I meant. The point is that anyone who submits to net.motss is expected to behave responsibly. (This applies to every other newsgroup, except, perhaps, net.flame, but it's especially important for net.motss.) Mark
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (10/20/83)
It was precisely because of the possibility of such vandalism that
2.10 news was changed to make rmgroup advisory. In 2.9 and earlier
versions of news, rmgroup actually removed the group (and all the
articles in it were thrown away.) In 2.10, the group is not
removed, but mail is sent to the local contact who can decide
whether to remove it by hand. If you are running 2.9 or earlier,
you probably should recreate the newsgroup (I expect a "newgroup"
will be going around soon) and get the first 4 articles from your
neighbor. You can protect yourself against rmgroups by upgrading
to 2.10.1.
I've been out of town for a week and unable to comment publicly
on the formation of net.motss. However, the newsgroup does exist,
and it should be given a fair chance. While some serious reservations
were expressed, they were mostly of a hypothetical nature ("what if
some vice president gets wind of it and forces somebody off Usenet")
or local to one machine ("we won't accept or forward it here").
On the other hand, the proponents of the newsgroup handled things in
a very responsible manner and bent over backwards to address the
concerns of the net, and frankly, they have reason on their side.
The newsgroup will continue to exist unless and until it causes
serious harm to some Usenet site (such as being forced off the net)
or to Usenet as a whole.
If your site has a problem with net.motss, you have the right to
not accept or forward it. If you do this, please make sure that
all sites downstream from you are aware of your policy, so they
will be able to make alternate routing arrangements if they really
want the newsgroup, without having to hunt down an apparently bad link.
And, please, let's act responsibly here. As long as the gays act
responsibly, they deserve the same consideration we give the other
special interest newsgroups. If you think gays are not worthy of
consideration by Usenet, consider that I know some gay people (whom
I respect a great deal) that do not have time for or interest in
Usenet - they are much too busy producing software that benefits us all.
Mark Horton