jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick) (07/23/88)
From article <547@etive.ed.ac.uk>, by news@etive.ed.ac.uk (Network News): > Perhaps the default distribution for create messages should be > "local"? This seems to be a common problem. Been bit by it myself. I would like to expand this a "little". The default distribution for *any* (I repeat: ANY) news posting should be "local"! ^^^^^ Why, you ask? It will help prevent neophytes from embarassing themselves and annoying other sites with "Dinette set for Sale" messages from AT&T (used to be New Jersey, now Denver seems to have taken the lead). This may "encourage" users to "learn" about the news software. (Or at least make them learn about it *before* they become net.pests. :-) ) It may also help reduce the number and amount of "followups" that have added to the current "flame war" currently raging in news.admin, among other places. (If we assume that most "followupers" followup in the "heat of the moment", they *may* just forget to change the Distribution: line. This is a "win" for the net.) It seems to me that this is the polite and reasonable *default*, as it will affect the smallest number of sites and individuals. Surely you can think of other good reasons. So --- Is this something that can be added to the current (2.11) news software easily? Yet another patch file for news 2.11 is not unreasonable. I can even see this as a site configuration option -- but would still lobby for the *default* configuration being "local" distribution. I would also like to see the other news developers out there (3.0? NNTP? "C"-news?) implement this. [No flames or even "discussion" about how it won't work because of all the people who don't/won't upgrade. Not germane to my point. If the software is available, *some* sites will use it. It *will* spread, albeit slowly. That in itself would satisfy my request.] Thank you. -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: <backbone>!uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (07/25/88)
For a long time it has been possible to have a default distribution other than "world" In the distributions file, make the first line be: default whatever Where "whatever" is local or ba or na or usa or whatever you want the default distribution to be. The default distribution is only used if the posted does not explicitly specify a distribution
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/27/88)
In article <6260@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: >I would like to expand this a "little". The default distribution for *any* >(I repeat: ANY) news posting should be "local"! ... >I can even see this as a site configuration option -- but would still lobby >for the *default* configuration being "local" distribution. Trouble is, most everybody will configure it the other way then. It's pointless to propose things that would help keep trash under control at the cost of making life harder for people who know what they're doing; such an idea either won't be implemented or will be bypassed automatically. You might possibly make it work if it were a per-*user* setting rather than a per-*site* setting. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dave@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (David A Rasmussen) (07/30/88)
From article <1988Jul26.232430.1599@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > In article <6260@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick) writes: >>I would like to expand this a "little". The default distribution for *any* >>(I repeat: ANY) news posting should be "local"! ... >>I can even see this as a site configuration option -- but would still lobby >>for the *default* configuration being "local" distribution. > > Trouble is, most everybody will configure it the other way then. It's > pointless to propose things that would help keep trash under control at > the cost of making life harder for people who know what they're doing; > such an idea either won't be implemented or will be bypassed automatically. > You might possibly make it work if it were a per-*user* setting rather than > a per-*site* setting. I don't see the problem with a user overridable default local-dist setting and how this makes life harder for someone like me who (usually) knows what he's doing. Henry, you folks up in the great white north don't (or do you ;-) know how dumb us americans are when it comes to geography. Ted Koppel of ABC news on Nightline the other night surveyed the public, and found that only something like 20% of the people aged 18-25 could identify the capitol of the united states, and only 5% knew the US was not a member of the warsaw pact. Anyhow, it would be nice if the folks here when posting news could just press return and post locally, unless they know enough to hit a few more keystrokes. I think this applies to other sites as well, but if not we'll probably do this to our users. Dave Rasmussen c/o Computing Services Division @ U of WI - Milwaukee Internet: dave@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Uucp: uwvax!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!dave {o,o} Csnet: dave%uwmcsd4@uwm Bellnet: +1 (414) 229-5133 \u/ ICBM: 43 4 58 N/ 87 55 52 W Usnail: Box 413 EMS E380, Milw WI 53201
shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) (07/30/88)
In article <6333@uwmcsd1.UUCP> dave@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (David A Rasmussen) writes: >From article <1988Jul26.232430.1599@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): >> Trouble is, most everybody will configure it the other way then. It's >> pointless to propose things that would help keep trash under control at >> the cost of making life harder for people who know what they're doing; >> such an idea either won't be implemented or will be bypassed automatically. >Anyhow, it would be nice if the folks here when posting news could just >press return and post locally, unless they know enough to hit a few >more keystrokes. I dunno. When there was debate about whether or not postings should bounce if more than 50% of the lines were included material, people objected claiming that users would use several obvious workarounds to avoid the restriction. My feeling was that the inconvenience of typing a few extra keystrokes would discourage users from using the workarounds. I was wrong. Not only have rn users taken to using the -F switch to set the line prefix for quotes, they've gotten into the habit of adding fodder lines to the body of the text *whether they need to or not*. Let us not underestimate our users or ourselves. While I like the idea of a default distribution in principle, experience shows that adding features to encourage righteous behavior gives us all one more thing to tweak, break, and ignore. -- Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/31/88)
In article <539@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: > My feeling was that the inconvenience of typing >a few extra keystrokes would discourage users from using the >workarounds. I was wrong. Not only have rn users taken to using the >-F switch to set the line prefix for quotes, they've gotten into the >habit of adding fodder lines to the body of the text *whether they need >to or not*. >Let us not underestimate our users or ourselves. While I like the idea >of a default distribution in principle, experience shows that adding >features to encourage righteous behavior gives us all one more thing to >tweak, break, and ignore. I don't think the two directly equate. Line inclusion is an all or nothing proposition - either the article goes or it doesn't. By setting a restricted default distribution (say local), it's just as much work to change it to usa as it is to change it to world. I would think that in most cases, because the poster has to expend a *bit* of thought choosing the distribution, they will choose something reasonable. -- VE6BBM {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (08/02/88)
From article <10360@ncc.Nexus.CA>, by lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg): > In article <539@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: >> My feeling was that the inconvenience of typing >>a few extra keystrokes would discourage users from using the >>Let us not underestimate our users or ourselves. While I like the idea >>tweak, break, and ignore. > world. I would think that in most cases, because the poster has > to expend a *bit* of thought choosing the distribution, they > will choose something reasonable. As an absolute worst case, it is little worse than it the current state. as a best case, it will keep things like 'Atari ST 512K for sale' localized to a more reasonable grouping. One minus though: people might take to specifying USA instead of NA and freeze Canadiens out of reasonable discussions... (then again, we probably wouldn't have seen this MES junk, either...) -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/02/88)
In article <6333@uwmcsd1.UUCP> dave@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (David A Rasmussen) writes: >>>...The default distribution for *any* ... news posting should be "local"! >>>I can even see this as a site configuration option -- but would still lobby >>>for the *default* configuration being "local" distribution. >> >> Trouble is, most everybody will configure it the other way then... >I don't see the problem with a user overridable default local-dist setting >and how this makes life harder for someone like me who (usually) knows >what he's doing. The problem is that people do not like needing extra keystrokes to override defaults. The result will be that the software will be configured, or hacked, so that local-dist is *not* the default. Maybe you wouldn't do this, but others would. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jep@tlxprs.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) (08/11/88)
In article <4741@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: > >different suggestion - how about a new feature where each group >(possibly, maybe entire hierarchies instead?) has a default >distribution. thus, we could have a new file, which would includes >lines of the form > >newgroup-pattern:distribution > >so that each newsgroup would then have a default distribution. I personally think that this is an excellent idea. Maybe the news hackers can hack up a new patch for this feature. For things like "For Sale" I think that a default distribution as 'jfh' suggested for the current state would be a good idea unless it was known that somewhere else, there may be an interested party. -Jo Poplawski ...!princeton!telesci!fantasci!jep Disclaimer: but that is only my $0.02 worth...