webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/04/87)
In article <1482@xanth.UUCP>, john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens) writes: > In article <275@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > Creating a specific distribution code is IDENTICAL to creating a > > unmoderated group which is EXACTLY what is being requested and has > > been requested for the last month. > > No, No, No! BOB, you're continually decreasing you're credibility. Hmmm. I guess what is not credible is that the equivalence would be clear without further explanation. There are many programs for reading news from the news database of any given machine (I frequently use vnews, more, and rn). Doubtless many more will be created. What parts of the information in the header is made visible to the reader is entirely up to the person putting it together. If I want to be presented with messages with the most restrictive distribution (on the assumption that they may be most relevant to me) all the information is available regardless of what file names any particular site chooses to use (for users that have the cpu, running a database program on news messages in background could be real interesting -- however, if it catches on, I would expect the site admin could be persuaded to use more helpful file names, e.g., /usr/spool/news/world/comp/sources/discussion/unverified /usr/spool/news/world/comp/sources/tested/C/verified Such names are totally independent of what other sites choose to use as names. So, to readers there is no difference between any of the information, since all of it is available (although some easier than others in any given database). Any of the information in a message could be used as a basis upon which to control to which neighboring machines it goes. In its current instantiation, the news software clearly allows distribution to be restricted by distribution code and by user group name, so it won't matter to the distribution of unmoderated sources whether it is restricted by distribution code or by group name except to the degree that the people making the decision are too lazy to pay attention to the significance of what they are doing (a matter on which various people disagree - considering that the backbone has seen fit to distinguish misc, soc, rec, and talk groups in order to make it easier to cut distribution of various collections of groups without having to specifically point at one group and say it is not wanted). You have mentioned that it was proposed that only one distribution code be created and hence one that would be applicable to all news groups. This raises some questions, e.g., can one use both the `unverified' distribution code and the usa distribution code, or must all `unverified' messages be viewed as world distribution. How much difficulty is it for someone to fetch or keep from fetching a message based on the criteria that the distribution is both unverified and the group is comp.sources.unix is a matter that you have not yet addressed. To me, at the moment, I find the 1) creation of a new unmoderated group called either comp.source.rwx or talk.sources, 2) the lifting of moderation on either comp.sources.misc or comp.sources.unix, and the 3) the creation of a special distribution code that legitimitizes posting to moderated groups within Usenet to be all equivilant in that they propose to make it a respectable thing thing to post sources directly into the news stream in a manner that makes it easy for all users to find them. This is something that a number of sites on the backbone specifically oppose because they feel that the only hope of controlling the flow is to eventually have all the streams that they carry be moderated. Thus, whenever the behavior of a group presents a problem that they feel could be solved by moderation, they will/do moderate that group claiming that they are solving a particular problem that group has. Once a group has become moderated, they will/do oppose any suggestions that that moderation be lifted. New groups are strongly encouraged to form in a moderated fashion. The fact that moderation completely changes the unique character of the Usenet community is freely admitted and even called `improvement' as if such word magic would blank out the guilt of having lost the soul of the net while stuffing the stomach of it. ------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)