mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) (11/05/85)
Why aren't the following three rules enforced? 1) No automatic cross-posting (responses to the "first" or "best" of the original's groups by default). 2) No automatic quoting of messages. If people want to quote, make them work hard to do it. Maybe they'll find it easier to paraphrase. 3) No messages with less than X lines of content, for X on the order of 10. Content is NOT quotes or signatures. Maybe that would stop the stupid "me too" message from being sent. It seems a simple matter to add (or in case 2, subtract) the needed functionality from the user software. Wouldn't this help reduce useless traffic? Michael Caplinger mike@bellcore.arpa ihnp4!bambi!mike
jpn@teddy.UUCP (11/06/85)
>Why aren't the following three rules enforced? > >3) No messages with less than X lines of content, for X on the order of >10. Content is NOT quotes or signatures. Maybe that would stop the >stupid "me too" message from being sent. I find I can often make my point in less than 10 lines. I just wish more people would attempt to be concise. (this posting is 9 lines long INCLUDING a quote)
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (11/06/85)
In article <202@bambi.UUCP>, mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) writes: > It seems a simple matter to add (or in case 2, subtract) the needed > functionality from the user software. Wouldn't this help reduce useless > traffic? Mike, take a look sometime at the list posted from Seismo of "Known Versions of News" in existance. People are running versions of news that are 3 years old and 3 versions old. (For example, by the header I see that site bambi runs news 2.10.1 created on 6/24/83. 2.10.2 has been around for over a year now.) Software changes for enforcement of rules will never work since there is no way to make people install them. (People don't, even when there are free and better versions available!)
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/08/85)
In article <202@bambi.UUCP> mike@bambi.UUCP (Michael Caplinger) writes: >Why aren't the following three rules enforced? ... >2) No automatic quoting of messages. If people want to quote, make them >work hard to do it. Maybe they'll find it easier to paraphrase. > >3) No messages with less than X lines of content, for X on the order of >10. Content is NOT quotes or signatures. Maybe that would stop the >stupid "me too" message from being sent. > Michael Caplinger If someone has to insert a quote by "hand" (i.e., including a file containing a saved article), how could the program possibly tell that the quote is not "content"? By checking through every article in every newsgroup to see if one of them happens to contain the quoted material? If anything, it seems that this would increase volume, since any posting shorter than 10 would have to be padded out. (And I can imagine the traffic in semi-illicit programs that would automatically save an article, include it in a file, add the >'s before each line of the quote, pad the article if shorter than 10 lines, etc..., that would develop if this idea came through.) By the way, wouldn't making it "easier to paraphrase" A) discourage point- by-point rebuttal (effectively meaning that whoever posted the first article can never be completely rebutted) and B) make it easier to misquote, also? PS: I am pleased to announce that Johns Hopkins no longer prohibits reading of net.news or net.news.group, though other groups such as most other net.news.* subgroups and net.unix are still on the proscribed list. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/12/85)
In <1131@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: >PS: I am pleased to announce that Johns Hopkins no longer prohibits reading >of net.news or net.news.group, though other groups such as most other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >net.news.* subgroups and net.unix are still on the proscribed list. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is more bizarre than anything ever in net.bizarre was... Anybody ever see a rational explanation for this sort of thing? Why anybody would restrict access to stuff like the new-site announcements in net.news.config or the technical info in net.unix is completely beyond me... Muchly strangeness... Will