gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (03/18/86)
In article <1989@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP writes: > If the entire backbone gets together on such a decision, then it will > affect the entire net, whatever votes are taken. True, you could set up > an alternate backbone, but that would just move the power into the hands > of a *different* "select group". There is an important distinction to be drawn here. The "backbone" can be a different set of sites for different subsets of the newsgroups. If today's backbone decided not to carry net.continuous.arguments, an alternate backbone could decide to carry it with minimal hassle -- it would take about 10 or 15 sites (not counting off-North-American sites) who were willing to spend long distance $$ to see that group come through. Once it hit your local area, unless a Spaffordite (like a Luddite?) came through with an rmgroup for it, it would just propagate the way all the "backboned" newsgroups do. This does not transfer power away from the old backbone; rather, it diffuses it to those who are willing to "put their money where their mouth is". BTW, I think removing net-wide "rmgroup" is a great idea. Of course, it should be replaced by a control message which causes the local site to forward the article to "usenet" via email, so there is a way to tell every site admin (in their morning mail) about news administration things. This is a little stronger than net.news.sa (how many people read netnews before mail, or put net.news.sa first in their .newsrc?) and should be used with more discretion, of course -- but at least it tends to decentralize control of the usenet while maintaining communication among the controllers. This is an OPTION in current netnews software. If you haven't turned off automatic RMGROUP at *your* site, remake the news software with MANUALLY #define'd. See the instructions for building the news software. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa Post no bills.
gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) (03/20/86)
[line-eater chow] In article <635@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > BTW, I think removing net-wide "rmgroup" is a great idea. Of course, > it should be replaced by a control message which causes the local site > to forward the article to "usenet" via email, so there is a way to tell > every site admin (in their morning mail) about news administration > things. This is a little stronger than net.news.sa (how many people > read netnews before mail, or put net.news.sa first in their .newsrc?) > and should be used with more discretion, of course -- but at least it > tends to decentralize control of the usenet while maintaining > communication among the controllers. I agree, and while we're at it, let's remove "newgroup" also. Replace them both with a control message which generates mail to "usenet", saying "group net.boo.bar has been {new,rm}grouped by <path> -- you may take appropriate action. No reason that because a group has been {new.rm}grouped somewhere that I should believe it, or that I should listen if it was done by a backbone administrator -- the group may be limited to a certain geographical area (temporarily) but the name or location in the file system of the group shouldn't have to change. > This is an OPTION in current netnews software. If you haven't turned > off automatic RMGROUP at *your* site, remake the news software with > MANUALLY #define'd. See the instructions for building the news > software. > -- I may be mistaken, but I checked out the 2.10 distribution kit and it says that MANUALLY only inhibits the removal of the directory (assuming it is removable by news) and removes the newsgroup from the active file, only. This may only be available in the latest versions of news (2.10.3) but NONEWGROUPS can be defined along with MANUALLY to inhibit creation of new groups. If you don't have a latest version of news you'll have to hack inews to do it -- it should only involve disabling the part of the code that creates the directories, etc. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@eddie.mit.edu
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (03/20/86)
I don't necessarily agree with removing net-wide rmgroup, but I heartily agree with John's idea that everyone should make their news software to disallow automatic RMGROUP. I have automatic NEWGROUP for convenience, it is easy to undo the work of NEWGROUP pranksters; but I don't want anyone to have the authority to automagically RMGROUP my newsgroups!! -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd decvax watmath ]!clyde!rcj