jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) (10/27/89)
I was wondering if there is someone out there that is keeping track of who
does what on usenet. What I mean by that is, I know someone does the
Bandwidth Waster's thing. Does this include such things as people who insist
on having huge .sigs? Let me explain what I'm getting at:
I'm tired of people who incessantly flame everyone and people who have .sigs
that are 14 lines. That's ridiculous. I want to send them a few warnings, and
then, if they don't comply with net ettiquette, sent up a kill file that will
delete their articles. I think it would have to be done with a script file or
some such. If anyone has any suggestions?? So, I thought that if there wasn't
a list of people who are not following net ettiquette, perhaps one could be
started. Make a mailing list, nominate people to on the list, and vote on it.
Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?
--
Jesse W. Asher
Dynasys (901) 382-1705
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
uunet!dynasys!jesseawesty@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Jim West) (10/31/89)
In article <12@dynasys.UUCP> jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher - Sysadmin.) writes: >I was wondering if there is someone out there that is keeping track of who >does what on usenet. I do not believe there is any centralized authority, just a lot of 'dukedoms' composed of USENET sites. >what I mean by that is, I know someone does the >Bandwidth Waster's thing. Does this include such things as people who insist >on having huge .sigs? I saw this posting; I thought it was a joke. At least I didn't take it seriously. >I'm tired of people who incessantly flame everyone and So am I, but I've learned to ignor it. (This seems to be the best way, I've sent mail once or twice to people I don't know, but now I don't see the point (There are better ways to spend my time |-)). >people who have .sigs >that are 14 lines. That's ridiculous. I agree with this some of the time; yet some of the .sigs are very amussing (sometimes more interesting than the actual posting 8-). >I want to send them a few warnings, and >then, if they don't comply with net ettiquette, sent up a kill file that will >delete their articles. Now for the big question: What gives you the right to enforce net ettiquette and/oR kill their article? I agree that if you own the machine that you _may_ have the right to control what articles appear on your machine and who has access to it (I said _may_ because I'm not 100% sure that you do, but I don't wan't to argue that point; it seems to pop up every so often). >So I thought that if there wasn't >a list of people who are not following net ettiquette, perhaps one could be >started. Make a mailing list, nominate people to on the list, and vote on it. >Ideas? Comments? Suggestions? But what happens when your name appears on that list, and the people you try to ban ban you? It's an interesting idea, but who holds the power. If you left it to majority rule, you might find yourself cast out. I just don't like the idea of keeping a 'black' list of any sort; there are too many ways that it could be abused (If you did keep this list and my name appeared, could I appeal? If I could, how would an appeal be handled? Would I get a jury trial, with the jury composed of my 'peers'?). Yes, its unfortunate that some abuses happen (depending on how you look at things). But IMHO you would created many more problems by trying enforce someones 'rules' on the USENET community (Think of all the work someone would need to supply, and think of all the complaints and people who might fight you with 'gurilla' tactics). I guess if you don't like it you can build your own ;-). > Jesse W. Asher > Dynasys (901) 382-1705 > 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 > uunet!dynasys!jessea Jim West Part-time graduate student at Johns Hopkins University