greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (10/19/89)
Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! Others view are solicited.
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/20/89)
So, his clarinet samples are in biz. If anything, this should be the one hierarchy that he could have chosen which wouldn't draw any fire. If you don't want it, fine. Go ahead and remove it. What exactly _is_ your problem here? Why do you get the biz hierarchy at all if you can't deal with the inherent commercialism of it? Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
" Maynard) (10/21/89)
In article <331@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: > Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical >venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to >announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and >we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I >am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the >only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! *sigh*. ClariNet is *not* on the regular Usenet. He is, instead, providing a sample of his service on the (parallel) Biznet - the biz.* hierarchies. That's the kind of thing that biz.* is for - business ventures. If Brad wanted to take eeeeeeeeeevil commercial advantage of the net, all he'd need to do would have been to make it alt.clarinet.sample. Instead, he followed the rules, and made appropriate use of an available facility. Brad is *not* using the Usenet to distribute his service, except for links between two systems who are both his customers, and have agreed to use the link for that purpose. If you think that commercial use of the net is eeeeeeeevil, then I suggest you get your upstream feeds to not send you the entire biz.* hierarchy - for that's what it's there for. Further, if you decide to trash rec.humor.funny off of your system - despite the fact that it's not a ClariNet venture - you're welcome to, but I'll make this offer: any of your downstream sites can contact me and I'll arrange to feed it to them. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Send richard@gryphon.com your NO vote on sci.aquaria; it belongs in rec.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/21/89)
As quoted from <331@lawnet.LawNet.Com> by greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen): +--------------- | Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical | venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to | announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and | we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I | am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the | only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! +--------------- The clari.all hierarchy is, like alt.all, not part of the mainstream Usenet. You are perfectly free to out !clari.all in your sys file and request your newsfeeds not to pass it on to you. So what's the problem? If the problem is that you somehow think that newsfeeds should be restricted to the mainstream Usenet only and not pass anything not in the mainstream, you are in the minority. Why is the clari.all hierarchy not legal for distri- bution via Usenet channels, while alt.all, unix-pc.all, u3b.all, pubnet.all, etc. are? If the problem is that you consider clari.all to be a bad neighbor despite the fact that it is NOT a mainstream Usenet hierarchy, fine. Request to your newsfeeds that they not send it to you. But don't presume to order the rest of the sites on the Usenet around about what they're allowed to transmit via Usenet distribution channels. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp 161-7070 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone [comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>] *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/21/89)
As quoted from <1989Oct21.020748.4431@NCoast.ORG> by allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery):
+---------------
| The clari.all hierarchy is, like alt.all, not part of the mainstream Usenet.
+---------------
Oops. biz.clari.all, of course. My comments apply doubly -- biz.all is
EXPLICITLY a commercial sub-net which uses the general Usenet distribution
software for a non-Usenet hierarchy. If this bothers you, then you don't
understand the distinction between the Usenet and the software and
distribution channels used to implement it.
++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG
uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp
161-7070 (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie), comp-sources-misc@backbone
[comp.sources.misc-related mail should go ONLY to comp-sources-misc@<backbone>]
*Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (10/24/89)
In article <331@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: > > Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical >venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to >announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and >we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I >am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the >only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! > >Others view are solicited. As long as Brad keeps it in "biz", which is THE PLACE for commercial-type articles (whether they promote something commercial indirectly or directly, and especially if in volume) I don't have a problem with it. If you don't want it, nuke the biz.clarinet.* from your system. Problem solved. If you don't want ANY commercial postings, nuke biz.* (or better, ask your feed(s) to turn it off for you). BIZ was formed for those people who WANT to see commercial postings, from hardware for sale ads to services to software companies to (gasp) information providers. All that was asked is that people who want to send a "newgroup" for a specific sub-group of "biz" post a message to biz.config first, asking for comments (and waiting a reasonable time for replies). I don't recall Brad doing >that<, but it's not that big a deal. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (10/25/89)
In article <1989Oct20.072121.16743@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >So, his clarinet samples are in biz. If anything, this should be the >one hierarchy that he could have chosen which wouldn't draw any fire. >If you don't want it, fine. Go ahead and remove it. What exactly >_is_ your problem here? Why do you get the biz hierarchy at all if >you can't deal with the inherent commercialism of it? > >Dave >-- > (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) Apparently you didn't get the create newsgroup message that was sent out which, as I understood the situation required a vote. Moreover, I frankly don't get "biz" - which was the point of the posting. Since I don't why is brad@looking approving groups outside "biz" and sending them. As I now understand in email responses he was trying to do a service about the earthquake - or so I am told (ca.earthquake seems to serve the purpose as well) albeit the email was the first I heard of that (and I will leave my views of the merits out of it).
" Maynard) (10/26/89)
Greg's posting is so full of factual errors it's hard to know where to start. In article <332@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >Apparently you didn't get the create newsgroup message that was sent out Anyone who's seeing biz.clarinet.sample got the newgroup message, by definition. >which, as I understood the situation required a vote. Neither biz.all nor clari.all requires a vote. Biz.* works like alt.*: post a message, get comments, if not royally flamed create the group. Clari.* is even simpler: it's Brad's hierarchy, and he can do what he wants to with it. Note well: _neither_ _one_ is part of the mainstream Usenet, and _neither_ _one_ is subject to its rules. >Moreover, I frankly don't get "biz" - which was the point of the posting. There are exactly two ways for you to get that stuff: 1) You get biz, either intentionally or leaked. 2) You get Clarinet, either intentionally or leaked. Since you say you don't get either one intentionally, then there's a leak, either in clari.* or biz.*. I suggest you contact your feed sites to find out which is the case; if someone's leaking clari.*, I believe there's a cash reward for you if you can find out who. Personally, I suspect someone's leaking biz to you. > Since I don't why is >brad@looking approving groups outside "biz" and sending them. You must be referring to clari.* - which is his hierarchy to do with as he pleases, since it's outside of the mainstream Usenet and not subject to its rules. > As I now >understand in email responses he was trying to do a service about the >earthquake - or so I am told (ca.earthquake seems to serve the purpose >as well) albeit the email was the first I heard of that (and I will leave >my views of the merits out of it). Actually, it was there before that - he was gatewaying news of the Shuttle before the earthquake, and news of the baseball pennant races before that. Besides, did ca.earthquake carry a direct feed from UPI? Your hysteria is adding little to the discussion; if you'd just calm down and look at the facts, you'd see that Brad's _not_ trying to take over the Usenet for his nefarious, eeeeeeeeeevil commercial purposes. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Gandhi II: no more Mr. Passive Resistance...he's out to kick some butt!
greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (10/26/89)
In article <2962@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical >>venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to >>announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and >>we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I >>am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the >>only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! > > >ClariNet is *not* on the regular Usenet. He is, instead, providing a >sample of his service on the (parallel) Biznet - the biz.* hierarchies. WRONG! If that were the case I would not complain. It is clari - not biz.clari that I am complaining about. >That's the kind of thing that biz.* is for - business ventures. If Brad >wanted to take eeeeeeeeeevil commercial advantage of the net, all he'd >need to do would have been to make it alt.clarinet.sample. Instead, he >followed the rules, and made appropriate use of an available facility. Show me the rules that he followed. I am not aware that alt.* is a normal usenet hierarchy. I recall that most groups created on the network are usually voted on. That is the rule that I am used to following. I don;t remember any vote for what Brad did OUTSIDE the biz. groups -- thats my complaint. It seems that he just decided to send out the create group message and create it without any vote at all -- is that compliance with the rules? > >Brad is *not* using the Usenet to distribute his service, except for >links between two systems who are both his customers, and have agreed to >use the link for that purpose. If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. > >If you think that commercial use of the net is eeeeeeeevil, then I >suggest you get your upstream feeds to not send you the entire biz.* >hierarchy - for that's what it's there for. REPEATING -- I don't get biz.clari - I get clari. [note the absence of biz. in the front of the clari.] As to "commercial use" of the net that is common place in some degree for everyone on the net. To use the net as advertising medium or to carry on a constant business venture is a different matter altogether. PS -- your correction message saying that the group you are talking about is "biz.clari" is another matter altogether. biz.clari does not get to this system so your follow up does not alter the complaint that I have, to wit: that .clari exists. Limited to biz.clari would not bother me and would be an optional hieracry. -- Gregory G. Petersen Voice: 714-971-1441 greg@Words2.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott Fax: 714-971-1329 770 The City Drive South A Law Corporation Orange, California 92668
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (10/27/89)
greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >In article <2962@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>> Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical >>>venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to >>>announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and >>>we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I >>>am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the >>>only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! >>ClariNet is *not* on the regular Usenet. He is, instead, providing a >>sample of his service on the (parallel) Biznet - the biz.* hierarchies. >WRONG! If that were the case I would not complain. It is clari - not biz.clari >that I am complaining about. If you're getting clari, and the articles don't show crossposting to biz.clari, then send mail to Brad --- as Jay pointed out, there's probably a reward. Clari is a commercial service --- what possible reason could Brad have for sending it to you for free? >Show me the rules that he followed. I am not aware that alt.* is a normal >usenet hierarchy. This must be a typo. Alt is definitely _not_ a 'normal usenet hierarchy' in the 'has rules' sense. >I recall that most groups created on the network are usually voted on. That >is the rule that I am used to following. I don;t remember any vote for >what Brad did OUTSIDE the biz. groups -- thats my complaint. It seems >that he just decided to send out the create group message and create it without >any vote at all -- is that compliance with the rules? Only groups created in the following hierarchies need be voted on: comp,misc,news,rec,sci,soc,talk (the big 7) Other hierarchies can be created pretty much at will, and run as their creators wish them to be run. Of course, the rest of the net need not support your pet hierarchy and can refuse to propogate it. Creation, though, is pretty much a free-for-all. Many sites have a local hierarchy (here we have uiuc.* for university-wide groups), and there are lots of state and regional hierarchies. For most of these there's no voting at all; rather, one or a few individuals control the hierarchy and do what they will. So, yes, sending out a newgroup for clari.* is entirely within the rules. >>Brad is *not* using the Usenet to distribute his service, except for >>links between two systems who are both his customers, and have agreed to >>use the link for that purpose. >If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files >for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not >a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. Either: one of your upstream feeds is deleting the biz.clarinet.sample part of the crossposting, or one of your upstream feeds is letting clari.* loose. If the first, you've got a bad neighbor and should complain. If the second, Brad has someone to police. >>If you think that commercial use of the net is eeeeeeeevil, then I >>suggest you get your upstream feeds to not send you the entire biz.* >>hierarchy - for that's what it's there for. >REPEATING -- I don't get biz.clari - I get clari. [note the absence of biz. >in the front of the clari.] Clarinet postings to biz.clarinet.sample are crossposted to the appropriate clari.* group. Thus you could be getting the groups due to rabid header rewriting. >As to "commercial use" of the net that is common place in some degree for >everyone on the net. To use the net as advertising medium or to carry >on a constant business venture is a different matter altogether. 'The net' is a misnomer. It's well nigh impossible to reason about 'the net' when what you mean is a group of individual sites agreeing to pass news around. Those individual sites who _want_ Clarinet pay Brad for it and agree to pay the bills for transmission. No sites who _don't_ want Clarinet are supposed to be involved in carrying the groups to sites who do subscribe. Thus, the resources of 'the net' aren't being misused. In your case, either: an upstream site is sending you biz.clarinet.sample (with or without header rewriting), or an upstream site is sending you clari.*. In either case, someone is sending you something you don't want. _Complain to them!_ Tell them you don't want these groups. >PS -- your correction message saying that the group you are talking about >is "biz.clari" is another matter altogether. biz.clari does not get to this >system so your follow up does not alter the complaint that I have, to wit: >that .clari exists. Limited to biz.clari would not bother me and would >be an optional hieracry. clari.* is also an optional hierarchy. _Everything_ besides comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, and talk are optional hierarchies. In fact, those are optional too --- you don't _have_ to carry all the groups, or indeed any of them. If you don't like a hierarchy, or just a group, delete it. Of course, you should tell sites downstream of you that you're deleting things so they can find alternate suppliers if they want the groups. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) (10/27/89)
In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >>Brad is *not* using the Usenet to distribute his service, except for >>links between two systems who are both his customers, and have agreed to >>use the link for that purpose. > >If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files >for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not >a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. Because your upstream feed allows it in their sys file entry for you. They either explicitly allow clari.* newsgroups to be sent to you, or (shudder) they send you all.* (not the best way to set up a sys file). -- Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies karl@MorningStar.COM No disclaimer needed -- RTFM for Usenet.
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (10/27/89)
In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >In article <2962@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>> Am I amazed to see that clarinet is now on the network with its comeerical >>>venture? No -- what I am is angry that it is here. When Brad decided to >>>announce this idea on the net many of us said this would happen and >>>we were told that it would not. The question is "now what"? I >>>am deleting his newsgroups from this system and I suggest that is the >>>only way to keep him off the net with clarinet! >> >> >>ClariNet is *not* on the regular Usenet. He is, instead, providing a >>sample of his service on the (parallel) Biznet - the biz.* hierarchies. > >WRONG! If that were the case I would not complain. It is clari - not biz.clari >that I am complaining about. Greg, you should really try to gather a little information before flaming people. The clari.all distribution is a commercial venture. It uses the same transport system as Usenet to ship newswire clippings. It is *not* part of Usenet. If you're getting it and you aren't a subscriber, that means that a site upstream of you blew it and illicitly added clari to your feed. This is in violation of their contract with Clarinet, unless it's a sample feed, in which case it was simply rude to do it without asking you. But in no way is it Brad Templeton's fault. I think you owe Brad an apology, bucko. Dave Mack
" Maynard) (10/27/89)
In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >Show me the rules that he followed. I am not aware that alt.* is a normal >usenet hierarchy. >I recall that most groups created on the network are usually voted on. That >is the rule that I am used to following. I don;t remember any vote for >what Brad did OUTSIDE the biz. groups -- thats my complaint. It seems >that he just decided to send out the create group message and create it without >any vote at all -- is that compliance with the rules? That's only true for comp.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*, misc.*, and rec.* - the mainstream Usenet. Groups starting with those names are subject to the normal rules you refer to. Groups which aren't part of those hierarchies follow different rules specific to each hierarchy: gnu.*, for example, gets a new group each time there's a new gnu mailing list, and Karl Kleinpaste creates them automatically. alt.* is the anarchy/flamefest we all know and love. clari.* is Brad's private domain, where he can do as he pleases - since the only people who are supposed to receive it are his customers. Brad had to adopt a separate hierarchy name to allow use of the standard news software to distribute his product. This does _*NOT*_ mean that he's using the Usenet. >If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files >for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not >a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. If you are getting clari.* files that are _not_ crossposted to biz.clarinet.sample, then someone upstream of you is leaking ClariNet. Find out who and send Brad some proof - there's money in it for you. That is, if you're not too proud to take money from an eeeeeeeeeeeeevil commercial venture. >As to "commercial use" of the net that is common place in some degree for >everyone on the net. To use the net as advertising medium or to carry >on a constant business venture is a different matter altogether. Brad's using the news software, and some news links - but, by contract with his customers, only those where sites at both ends of the link are ClariNet subscribers. That's _not_ using the net as advertising medium or business venture. >PS -- your correction message saying that the group you are talking about >is "biz.clari" is another matter altogether. biz.clari does not get to this >system so your follow up does not alter the complaint that I have, to wit: >that .clari exists. Limited to biz.clari would not bother me and would >be an optional hieracry. How do you know that it's not biz.clarinet.sample? Post a header from one of the myriad articles in junk that doesn't have biz.clarinet.sample in the Newsgroups: header. Clari.* is not part of the Usenet, and therefore is not subject to its rules. You should never see it. If you are, independently of biz.clarinet.sample, then someone upstream of you is screwing up, and violating their contract with ClariNet Communications Corp. in the process. Your wrath is best directed at them, not Brad Templeton. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Gandhi II: no more Mr. Passive Resistance...he's out to kick some butt!
Reply-To: coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (10/27/89)
karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) writes: >In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >>If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files >>for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not >>a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. >Because your upstream feed allows it in their sys file entry for you. They >either explicitly allow clari.* newsgroups to be sent to you, or (shudder) >they send you all.* (not the best way to set up a sys file). Unless, of course, the site you're feeding explicitly _wants_ all.*. We're one of those. No particular reason _to_ take everything, but no reason not to either, and we've got the resources to do it. At any rate, there are a few of us out here who actually want to get all.*. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (10/27/89)
[Apologies for reposting --- first copy was cancelled due to header trouble] karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox) writes: >In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >>If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files >>for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not >>a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. >Because your upstream feed allows it in their sys file entry for you. They >either explicitly allow clari.* newsgroups to be sent to you, or (shudder) >they send you all.* (not the best way to set up a sys file). Unless, of course, the site you're feeding explicitly _wants_ all.*. We're one of those. No particular reason _to_ take everything, but no reason not to either, and we've got the resources to do it. At any rate, there are a few of us out here who actually want to get all.*. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (10/27/89)
>>Because your upstream feed allows it in their sys file entry for you. They >>either explicitly allow clari.* newsgroups to be sent to you, or (shudder) >>they send you all.* (not the best way to set up a sys file). > >Unless, of course, the site you're feeding explicitly _wants_ all.*. >We're one of those. No particular reason _to_ take everything, but >no reason not to either ... Except that if any of your feeds start taking ClariNet, they've suddenly GOT a good reason not to feed you all.* -- namely, all.* now includes something which you're not paying for and which they're not allowed to pass on if you ain't. So ClariNet and "all.*" in the sys file don't mix well. The downstream site can *accept* all.* if it wants. But if it does so, and if it makes no attempt to regulate what the feed site sends it -- then it has no business complaining when clari.* (or leprosy.*) newsgroups start arriving. -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/30/89)
As quoted from <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> by greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen): +--------------- | In article <2962@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: | >ClariNet is *not* on the regular Usenet. He is, instead, providing a | >sample of his service on the (parallel) Biznet - the biz.* hierarchies. | | Show me the rules that he followed. I am not aware that alt.* is a normal | usenet hierarchy. | I recall that most groups created on the network are usually voted on. That | is the rule that I am used to following. I don;t remember any vote for | what Brad did OUTSIDE the biz. groups -- thats my complaint. It seems +--------------- The Usenet is composed of the top-level newsgroups: news misc rec sci talk comp soc and their component newsgroups. *All* other top-level hierarchies are available for other uses; thus, we have biz, alt, bionet, u3b, unix-pc... and, yes, clari and probably imn. So? +--------------- | If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files | for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not | a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge. +--------------- Precisely. Nobody voted on u3b.all, either. Or alt.all. If you are getting clari.all, find out what system is sending it to you (check /usr/lib/news/log, assuming you aren't running C news) and inform the sysadmin that he is violating his license with ClariNet. You should also inform Brad that the sysadmin is violating the license. +--------------- | REPEATING -- I don't get biz.clari - I get clari. [note the absence of biz. | in the front of the clari.] +--------------- Fine -- your newsfeed is doing the equivalent of sending you System V source code via news. Would you blame AT&T for that? REPEATING -- clari.all is NOT a Usenet hierarchy, and if you are getting it without specific arrangement with ClariNet then SOMEONE IS BREAKING THE LAW, because ClariNet is a commercial service. +--------------- | PS -- your correction message saying that the group you are talking about | is "biz.clari" is another matter altogether. biz.clari does not get to this +--------------- That was mine; I had forgotten that both existed. Which is completely beside the point. Anyone has the right to create their own top-level hierarchy and find a site willing to carry it; in the case of clari.all, nobody has the right to feed clari.all to anyone else without specific arrangements with both ClariNet and the receiving system(s). Flame your newsfeed. Not Brad, not ClariNet, and not us. ++Brandon Disclaimer: no relation to, and no interest in, ClariNet; but definitely involved with the Usenet and trying to explain what it is -- and is not. -- Brandon S. Allbery: allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* >>> Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? <<<
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (10/30/89)
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>Unless, of course, the site you're feeding explicitly _wants_ all.*. >>We're one of those. No particular reason _to_ take everything, but >>no reason not to either ... >Except that if any of your feeds start taking ClariNet, they've suddenly >GOT a good reason not to feed you all.* -- namely, all.* now includes >something which you're not paying for and which they're not allowed to >pass on if you ain't. >So ClariNet and "all.*" in the sys file don't mix well. The downstream >site can *accept* all.* if it wants. But if it does so, and if it makes >no attempt to regulate what the feed site sends it -- then it has no >business complaining when clari.* (or leprosy.*) newsgroups start >arriving. That's quite true. We still have no objection to receiving a free ClariNet feed (or anything else) --- but the hypothetical upstream site feeding it to us (no, Brad, we _don't_ have a free Clari feed!) would have a pretty good reason to not give us all, much as we might want it. And if you take all.*, well, you got what you asked for. We take it, and we're not likely to complain about getting the wrong thing. If something shows up that you don't want, cut it out of your active file and ! it out in your sys file --- and tell your feeds not to ship it to you; chances are they'll happily obey your request. We send all.* (or a very close facsimile thereof) to only one of our connections, and they want it. If we did have Clarinet, we'd be pretty careful of it too... --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/30/89)
Don't worry folks. He sent me some sample articles, and they are all earthquake stories posted to biz.clarinet.sample. He got confused because, to be efficient, I cross-post the earthquake articles to biz.clarinet.sample from the regular feed into clari.news.disaster and other groups. I don't generate an independent feed. What that means of course, is that you see "clari" groups on the newsgroups line, but you aren't getting them. Actually, if you created the Clarinet groups on your machine, the articles would go into those groups, but you wouldn't get the others. My UPI feed is 100 groups and many hundreds of articles per day if you want 'em all. But there have also been plenty of quake stories and that got him confused as he thought he got the full feed. If you got the full feed, you would know it! What annoys me is that you can't even give stuff away with no strings attached on biz an not get complaints. I suspect if biz.clarinet.sample is to become a regular usenet group, as some people suggested to me, it will have to be somebody else who goes through the net.bureaucracy. I don't need more hassles in my life. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (10/30/89)
In article <333@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes:
: If that is true what is the /usr/spool/news/junk filing up with clari.* files
: for on this system??? We never asked for the stuff and clari. is not
: a usenet hierarchy to my knowledge.
It is filling up with those files because your feed is sending
them to you. Since you obviously aren't a Clarinet subscriber,
they are violating their contract with Clarinet. Tell them to
stop. If you haven't even tried this yet, that is evidence of
negligence on your part. If you have tried, yet your feed
continues to send them to you, you have accepted this in spite of
your dislike: it is still your own damned fault.
Don't blame Brad for the failings of others.
And get some facts before you flame.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (11/01/89)
In article <2978@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) writes: > > Neither biz.all nor clari.all requires a vote. These are the biz groups that I order from UUNET: biz.comp.hardware biz.comp.mcs biz.comp.services biz.comp.software biz.comp.software.demos biz.comp.telebit biz.config biz.control biz.newgroup Note that I do not order biz, in the sense of getting everything that biz might contain. If I subscribed to biz and biz.clarinet were created, I would expect to begin receiving the new group. One morning I got mail from my system that both biz.clarinet and biz.clarinet.sample had been created. I should add that while I receive a subset of the alt hierarchy from UUNET, UUNET has always shielded me from the group creation activity characteristic of alt. Anyway, that morning and each successive morning until I put a stop to it, biz.clarinet.sample contained article after article of baseball game synopses written in the same predictable and (to me) uninteresting style that I had seen posted to sci.space during the Neptune flyby. I appreciated seeing a sample of the articles. I had previously been inclined to subscribe to clarinet, and I could immediately determine that reading a lot of that type of material would not be fun for me. That said, I feel that an inordinate amount of that material was forced upon me; especially considering the way a new hierarchy just popped up and started filling up disk space. I hope that in the future the usenet presence of clarinet will confine itself to biz.clarinet. If UUNET is in need of pushing more bits, perhaps they could provide a uucp <-> ftp transfer capability or something that is less controversial than the current association with clarinet. From my perspective, the complicity of UUNET in the hard sell of clarinet is unseemly. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/01/89)
If you subscribe to a specific list of biz groups INCLUDING biz.control, then it's easy to see how biz.clarinet.sample could get *created* on your system, since that's a control message. If your newsfeed truly was not feeding you biz.* in HIS sys file, and truly did not add the specific group biz.clarinet.sample to your entry, then it is difficult to see how b.c.s articles could have arrived at your system. That is, the expected behavior under the setup described would be that b.c.s would get created but remain empty. If the downstream sys file does not say biz.* and does not list b.c.s, then those articles should have been appearing in 'junk'. -- "Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you | Tom Neff will -- that will uncover a lot of things. | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/02/89)
In article <661@visdc.UUCP> jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) writes: >In article <2978@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com >(Jay Maynard) writes: >> >> Neither biz.all nor clari.all requires a vote. But biz.all does request that someone announce their intent before newgroups start showing up. As does the rest of the net. NO AREA ON USENET "requires" the announcement; "require" is something you just can't do in this medium. It's a matter of courtesy, a courtesy that was notable by it's absence. >These are the biz groups that I order from UUNET: (list deleted) >Note that I do not order biz, in the sense of getting everything that >biz might contain. If I subscribed to biz and biz.clarinet were >created, I would expect to begin receiving the new group. Yep. >One morning I got mail from my system that both biz.clarinet and >biz.clarinet.sample had been created. I should add that while I receive >a subset of the alt hierarchy from UUNET, UUNET has always shielded me >from the group creation activity characteristic of alt. Anyway, that >morning and each successive morning until I put a stop to it, >biz.clarinet.sample contained article after article of baseball game >synopses written in the same predictable and (to me) uninteresting style >that I had seen posted to sci.space during the Neptune flyby. > >I appreciated seeing a sample of the articles. I had previously been >inclined to subscribe to clarinet, and I could immediately determine >that reading a lot of that type of material would not be fun for me. >That said, I feel that an inordinate amount of that material was forced >upon me; especially considering the way a new hierarchy just popped up >and started filling up disk space. > >I hope that in the future the usenet presence of clarinet will confine >itself to biz.clarinet. If UUNET is in need of pushing more bits, >perhaps they could provide a uucp <-> ftp transfer capability or >something that is less controversial than the current association with >clarinet. From my perspective, the complicity of UUNET in the hard sell >of clarinet is unseemly. I don't believe that UUNET has a lot to do with it. However, Clarinet's crass sending of a control message in biz without announcing their intentions first is a little bit unnerving. Biz has no "czar" of the newgroups. If you wish to create a group in "biz", the accepted method of doing so is to post a message announcing your intent in one of the EXISTING groups (preferrably biz.config); barring a major complaint you issue the newgroup a week or two later. Clarinet didn't bother to send the announcement first. The purpose of that announcement is to allow people to adjust their sys files BEFORE YOU START FLOODING THEM, in the event that people don't want to see the stuff. As it sits, Clarinet just sent two newgroups, then hundreds of messages. It wasn't a big deal to me, but I can see (from the volume) where it could be for some people. After all, we are talking about: biz.clarinet 0000000010 00010 y biz.clarinet.sample 0000000917 00860 y NINE HUNDRED articles in the space of 3-4 weeks, or more than what some of the most popular groups received over the same period. MANY of those 900 were repetitions, which means that you sent and received them for nothing at all -- since they were cancelled and replaced a few hours later. Wonderful stuff. Thank the Gods that we get our feed via a Telebit -- otherwise we would likely be mightily upset over the transmission time involved here. I thank Brad for one thing -- he made it clear to me that the service is not worth the time or money, newsclip or no. My informal "reading" showed about a 50-70% duplicate rate -- where I would read before the "update" showed up, which then cancelled the old article, replaced it, and I got to see the replacement as well the next time through. Time to type the big "u". Biz is the right place for this kind of stuff. The procedure that was used in the creation of those groups, however, stunk. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) (11/14/89)
In article <14851@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >I must say it is irksome to see these repeated obtusities from Peterson. Tom -- I wish you spent more time responding to the posting. Your response is as incorrect as your spelling of my name. >Does he know how to examine a news logfile? Does he know how to read a >sys file? Does he know who his news administrator is? If he is his own >news administrator, does he know where to find a good book on managing >Usenet and UUCP? (The Nutshell series would be my recommendation.) Answers, in order presented: yes yes yes yes >I mean, COME ON. > Tom -- you come on. What you need is a book on debate and discussion. >You cannot get clari.* articles (non crossposted, just pure clari.*) >unless your newsfeed is feeding them to you. Judging from the Path in >Peterson's article, the feed site may be 'texbell!letni'. They must be >feeding 'clari' in order for clari articles to arrive downstream. If >they are, they are in violation of the clarinet agreement. If *their* >news administrator doesn't know how to control his system, he should be >goosed via net mail. (Actually Brad has an interest in doing this since >it's his assets being mis-distributed.) > We figured that someone was leaking clari.* somewhere along the line a long time ago. I have grave doubt that letni or texbell is leaking clari* to California (since we don't get a full feed from Texas) and I agree with the other postings that *all* is a proper feed if desired - but not from Texas to California. I think that the administrators at texbell or letni may disagree with your view that "[t]hey" are feeding the offending articles to lawnet. As to "goosing" a newws administrator - that was done long ago here - the offense has ceased. >Downstream sites without 'clari' in their sys files will simply end up >with articles in 'junk'. If this is what is happening at lawnet, then >it's the feed site's fault and has NOTHING TO DO with Brad! If Peterson >really sort of knows this but figures it's a worthy cause flaming Brad >anyway, then he should ***DO IT IN MAIL*** and not keep this tiresome >and illiterate non-discussion going in news.sysadmin. >-- Tom -- the discussions with Brad ended -- in email -- and I believe he solved the problem. What I object to is self appoint know it alls who continue this discussion with such comments as this -- which don't solve the problems -- but just add to them. -- Gregory G. Petersen Voice: 714-971-1441 greg@lawnet.LawNet.Com Petersen & Trott Fax: 714-971-1329 770 The City Drive South A Law Corporation Orange, California 92668
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/14/89)
In article <340@lawnet.LawNet.Com> greg@.LawNet.Com (Gregory G. Petersen) writes: >Tom -- you come on. What you need is a book on debate and discussion. ...and a whole lot more stuff that's inappropriate to a news posting. (Readers should remember that MAIL, yes MAIL is the place where sentences are supposed to read like "You did this, and you said that, so who do you think you are?" Here we write for everyone to read.) At any rate, while it's great to know that Brad straightened this user out, the lesson remains and should be run through once before we let this drop. *IF* one takes "all" from one's news neighbor, then one *is* at the mercy of whatever that neighbor decides to send, be it alt.*, clari.*, or leprosy.*; and if something unwelcome arrives, the place to take it up is with the *admin of the site that fed it*, not with the distant poster who wrote it. Period. Every posting carries path information to tell how it arrived. Use it! -- "The country couldn't run without Prohibition. ][ Tom Neff That is the industrial fact." -- Henry Ford, 1929 ][ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET