chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (07/18/86)
Well, after much thinking, discussing and typing I've worked out what I
consider to be the final rough draft of my proposed netiquette. I'd like
to thank the following individuals for sending me suggestions and many many
thanks to those who helped to edit the rough rough draft into the version
here...
Mathew P. Wiener, Peter Korn, John G. Dobnick, Kahless tai-Hazar, Tom Lane,
Carl S. Gutekunst, Frederick M. Avolio, Rick Westerman, Alan Bishop,
Andrew Burt, Louis Marco, Don Woods, David Herron, Kenneth Almquist,
Tony Birnseth, David P. Schneider, Mark Horton, Jim Wilson, Charley Wingate,
Tom O'Reilly, Snoopy, Edward C. Bennett, Felix Yen, Gordon A. Moffett,
Burch Seymour, Jim Poltrone, and Chuq Von Rospach,
Additional comments would be much appreciated (preferably by E-mail).
When reading this, try to imagine how a new user to netnews would react to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Network Etiquette
(but didn't know whom to ask)
by Chris Andersen
Welcome to USENET!
You are now a part of a widespread group known as the USENET community. We
are a collection of some of the most diverse individuals you are ever likely
to meet. Thousands of computers just like the one you are now using are
connected together over a network that spans most of North America, Western
Europe and some areas of the South Pacific. The number of people in the
USENET community is not known, but it has been estimated to be over 100,000.
If that sounds to you like a large number of people, you are correct.
You would also be correct if you thought sucfia large collection of people
sometimes find it difficult to get along with each other. Include in that the
fact that there is no real central authority controlling what passes through
the net, and you have a potential for chaos. Thus the need for a standard
network etiquette (known also as netiquette) to guide the way we interact
with each other.
That is the purpose of the document you are now reading.
Before we proceed, a few words of warning...
*This may be the most important document you will ever read on the
network*. Therefore, it is your responsibility to read carefully all
the information presented here.
If you have any preconceived notions about how network etiquette works
(such as you may have gotten from using similar systems), *forget
them*. The standards of behavior presented here are those accepted
by the USENET community as being the ones all net users should abide
by. Other forms of behavior, while they may have served well in
other situations, may not be compatible with the the standards
designed for USENET. Please remember that with each form of
electronic communication comes a new environment, an environment that
can create new problems. This netiquette document is designed to
overcome those problems before they occur.
This document describes the preferred etiquette on the net; therefore
you should at least try to follow it closely, *even if you see others
violating it*.
With that out of the way, let us get down to answering the questions you may
have about USENET and the USENET Community. (In what follows, important terms
will be delimited by single quotes (') and key points of the netiquette will
be delimited by double asterisks (**). Single asterisk (*) delimiters will be
used in place of italics )
Q: Do I have a right to use USENET?
NO!
** The use of USENET is a PRIVELEGE. **
USENET is a tool run by organizations around the world who wish to
communicate with each other. These organizations have PERMITTED you and
your fellow 'netters' to make personal use of their facilities. But that
permission could be taken away at any time.
Because of this, it is important to remember that sucf concepts as freedom
of speech don't apply to USENET. You do not have the RIGHT to use USENET to
express your opinions. Those who keep the net running with their money have
given you permission to do so WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS.
On USENET, the golden rule applies: They who have the gold, make the rules.
Q: How do people communicate using USENET?
The two most common ways to communicate on USENET are 'e-mail' and
'netnews'.
E-mail is short for Electronic Mail. It is similar to the mail handled by
your local Postal Service, only faster (usually). E-mail is any message that
you write on your local computer and pass on to the network mail servers that,
like electronic postmen, deliver it to a specific user or users on a different
computer. (You can also send e-mail to someone on your local computer, but
that does not use the network.)
Netnews, on the other hand, is like a bulletin board on which you 'post' a
message (known in netnews as an 'article') for everyone else in the USENET
community to read. They can then reply to your postings either by posting a
reply (called a 'followup') back on the netnews bulletin board, or by mailing
it to you through e-mail.
** E-mail is the preferred method of communication on USENET. **
The reason for this is simple economics. Everytime electronic
communication, whether a posting or a single e-mail message, is passed from
one computer to another; it costs someone money. Since the phone system is
usually used, the owners of each computer have to pay for the phone lines used
to do the tranfer (often these are expensive long distance phone calls.) A
piece of e-mail sent through the network goes through only those network
servers that lie between you and the destination for the message (usually 3-5
servers). However, a posting to netnews goes through EVERY server in the
entire network. The phone bills at times can be enormous (sometimes over
$1,000 a week for a single computer).
Although e-mail is the preferred medium of communication, the main purpose
of this document is to describe the etiquette of postings. The content of
e-mail is of less concern (though it is hoped that e-mail will also not be
abused). From now on, we will discuss netnews etiquette only.
Q: How big is netnews?
To steal blatantly from the author Douglas Adams: "News is big. Really
big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I
mean, you may think that the crowd at your average sporting event is large,
but that's just peanuts to news..."
Actually, it's not THAT big, but close enough. To give you an idea: Imagine
a stadium with every seat filled. Now imagine that you have to get up in
front of this crowd. Imagine that you have to read OUT LOUD anything you
post to the net.
Would that make you nervous? Would you be willing to stand by your words
under that kind of scrutiny?
No? Then don't post the article to netnews. Mail it instead.
Q: How is netnews organized?
Netnews is organized by subject into separate 'newsgroups'. There are over
150 newsgroups in netnews dealing with subjects ranging from bird watching to
bugs in the UNIX(tm) operating system. If there is a topic you would like to
discuss, you can probably find a newsgroup for it. If not, there are general
newsgroups designed for topics that don't warrant their own newsgroups.
Newsgroups are organized so that those wishing to discuss topics they find
interesting can do so without bothering those who aren't interested. You can
choose newsgroups to 'subscribe' to depending on your interests. If you
aren't interested in a newsgroup, 'unsubscribe'. (Instructions for
subcribing/unsubscribing may be found in the manuals on your local computer
that describe the news software you are using.)
Q: What newsgroups are there?
They can be broken down into categories dealing respectively with computers,
recreation, social matters, philosophy, science, and news itself.
Computer newsgroups discuss various computing issues such as what is
happening in the computing world (new software releases, etc.) and many other
subjects.
Recreation newsgroups discuss what people can do for their vacations,
various hobbies, what movies are playing and are they any good, etc.
Social newsgroups discuss how people interact with each other.
Philosophy (also known as 'talk') newsgroups discuss philosophy (of course),
politics and religion. The Philosophy newsgroups often have the most heated
discussions because they often come the closest to the core of people's
personal belief systems (this is also true, to a lesser extent, in the social
newsgroups.) Netiquette is essential in these newsgroups.
Science newsgroups discuss the natural sciences (plus a few of the unnatural
ones) sucf as physics, astronomy, etc.
News newsgroups discuss aspects of the USENET system itself, such as its
administration. These newsgroups keep people informed on the status of USENET
itself. The main groups in this section are net.news and net.news.group, plus
mod.announce.newusers (the newsgroup you are currently reading).
** you should pay attention to the News newsgroups. Unsubscribe only if
you're not interested in discussions regarding possible new
newsgroups, changes to network policies, and the future of USENET. **
There is another class of newsgroups that need to be mentioned. These are
the 'moderated newsgroups' (mod.*). They are like normal newsgroups, except
you post through a middleman (the 'moderator'.) It is the moderator's job to
look at each posting and to judge whether it is appropriate for the newsgroup
and to make sure it doesn't duplicate a previous article. Generally,
moderators do just what you would do IF you adhered to the netiquette. They
do not censor your writing, they serve as a means to prevent a discussion from
become to voluminous for USENET to handle.
Besides newsgroups, there is another forum that uses USENET as a
communication tool. They are called 'mailing lists'.
A mailing list is a simulation of a newsgroup using the e-mail facilities of
USENET. Articles are sent to a mailing list's moderator as they would to a
moderated group's moderator. The only difference is that the final article,
instead of going to every site on the net as a newsgroup does, goes to only
those individual users who have explicitly subscribed to it. (The names of
current mailing lists can be found in mod.newslists.)
Here are some major types of 'articles' (also called 'postings') that can be
posted to newsgroups and some suggestions on how to handle them...
Discussions: These are ongoing discussions on specific topics related to
the subject of the newsgroup.
Announcements: This covers announcements that are not intended to start
discussions (such as product anUouncements, conferences, etc.). Advertising
hype is strongly discouraged. You should also refrain from anUouncing major
news events. With the delay in net traffic, by the time others read the
announcement it will be old news to them. (E.g., don't come on and say "The
Shuttle just blew up!")
Questions: ("What is the color of Spock's blood?") Queries are posted all
the time in netnews and should be approached carefully.
** When answering someone's question, *never* post the answer. **
With the size of the net, you may not be the only one who knows the answer.
If everyone who did posted the answer, the net would be flooded by duplicate
articles. (The Spock's Blood question could generate hundreds of responses.)
Instead, e-mail your answer to the person asking the question. That person
(hopefully) will post the answer when they get it. That way, only one copy of
the answer is ever seen in netnews.
However, this does not mean you can't use someone's question as the basis
for a new topic.
Q: What goes into an article?
An article can be divided into three sections: the text, the 'header', and
the 'signature'.
The text is the part written by you, the user. It should contain productive
material that contributes to the topic currently being discussed or starts a
new topic the readers of the newsgroup will be interested in (more on this
latter.)
The header is a set of 'control lines' used by the USENET servers to
determine how the article is to be processed by the net. The header is also
important to you. Every time you post a followup, there is information in it
that you should consider changing, sucf as the subject, distribution and
cross-postings (more on this latter).
The signature is an optional part of the article that you, the poster, can
use to say, in a more human-readable form, who you are (again, more on this
later.)
Q: What are the control lines in the header and how should I use them?
There are many control lines, many of which you will not have to worry
about. However, there are a few that do warrant your attention. They are:
'Subject:', 'Distribution:', and 'Newsgroup:'.
"Subject:" describes the topic of the article.
When making an original article, you enter the subject on this line before
posting it to the network (most news software prompts for it automatically,
but not all.) However, when making a followup to someone else's posting, the
news software will usually take the subject line of the old article and use it
as the subject line of the new one (with "Re:" tacked on the beginning). The
news software will continue to reuse the old subject line, even if the topic
happens to change. Therefore...
** When making a followup, check the subject line and change it if it is
no longer correct. **
There are two other control lines called 'Keywords:' and 'Summary:' that are
similar to the subject line. You can leave these out, but if they're included
you should check them, too. "Keywords:" should give a short list of words
(usually nouns) that describe the general topic of the article; "Summjey:"
gives a one-line summary of the content. E.g., an article posted to net.astro
(astronomy/astrophysics) might have...
Subject: Latest publications from Princeton
Keywords: pulsars big bang
Summjry: Wheeler suggests pulsars are made of Jell-o
Readers can use the news software to read or ignore messages based on the
keywords listed.
"Distribution:" describes how the articles should be distributed throughout
the net.
News software normally sets distribution to the entire network (the world).
However, if you know that the article contains no useful information for
people outside a local area, change the distribution to just that area.
(Consult news manuals and your local administrator to find out what those
distributions are.) For example, if you had a lawn mower for sale in New
Jersey, you can bet that someone in Australia doesn't care to hear about it.
** Distribute a posting only to those who are likely to care about its
contents. **
"Newsgroup:" describes which newsgroup the article should be posted in.
Normally you would only post an article to one newsgroup, but the
"Newsgroup:" line allows you to post it to more than one. While the
newsgroup organization is designed to give topics an appropriate home for
them, there is overlap between groups -- areas where there may be a mutual
interest to more then one group. This is where 'cross-posting' comes in.
To cross-post, you just enter all the newsgroup names you wish to cross-post
to on the "Newsgroup:" control line. It's that simple.
But wait! Before you go around using this wonderful mechanism, remember
that it can easily be abused. Here are some general rules to follow:
o Make sure that the topic is appropriate for the other newsgroups.
The best way to do this is to cross-post to only those newsgroups that you
participate in actively. (This gives you a better idea of whether the
topic is appropriate, since you will have had first-hand experience with
the newsgroup.)
o Be frugal in the number of groups you cross-post to. Two will arise
occasionally, three should be used sparingly and four should be used only
in very rare, very special circumstances. Avoid cross-posting to more than
four newsgroups.
o When posting a followup to an article, the news software will automatically
post your reply to ALL the newsgroups the original article was cross-posted
to. Therefore, when writing your followup, check for cross-posting in the
"Newsgroup:" line (most news software will let you edit not only the the
text but the header also). If it is cross-posted, and the topic of your
followup no longer meets with the subject of one or more of the
cross-posted groups, then eliminate them from the "Newsgroup:" line.
o There is an extra header line called 'Followup-To:' that was designed for
use in cross-posting and redirecting topics. If you have a topic that you
think might be appropriate to more than one newsgroup but you think it
should be discussed only in ONE specific newsgroup, then add the line
"Followup-To: newsgroup name" to your article's header. Any followups that
are then made to the posting will be directed automatically to only that
newsgroup.
For example, if you want to suggest creating a new newsgroup to discuss
hopscotch, you might post an article to net.news.group and cross-post to
net.games, but direct all followup discussion to net.news.group alone,
since that's the newsgroup intended for such discussions. Your posting
should mention that you have directed followups to net.news.group, so that
people who subscribe only to net.games will know to subscribe to
net.news.group if they wish to follow the discussion.
Q: What is a signature and how should I use it?
The signature is a human-readable description of who posted the article to
netnews (it can also be used in e-mail). Most news software provides an
automatic signature mechanism which, when posting the article, will look for
the file '.signature' in your home directory. It will append this file onto
the end of each article you post to netnews. (Some software will also append it to e-mail.)
The signature file usually contains your name, your USENET address (useful
if the return address in the header of the article gets mangled by the news
servers and people want to reply to your postings) and some extra comments.
People often use these comments to personalize their signatures with quotes
and other bits of wisdom. You may also want to include an explicit disclaimer
making it clear that you are speaking for yourself, not your employer (see
below).
Just as in the rest of news, there is an etiquette to be followed.
** Keep signatures short! **
Every extra character in your signature means that your posting takes longer
to transmit (via phone calls, remember) and occupies more disk space on the
hundreds of computers in the network. It may not seem like much, but it does
add up.
All you should need is three lines for name, address, and comment (plus
some blank lines to make it more readable). It should not be necessjey for
your signature to exceed 5 lines. If it does, you should consider trimming
it.
Q: What do "foo", "Orphaned Response", "MOTOS", "MOTSS", "MOTAS", and "SO"
mean, and what is a line-eater?
"Foo" comes from the term "fubar" which is an acronym for "fouled up beyond
all recognition". ("Fouled" may be replaced by a stronger word.) It is used
as a mild term of disgust. It is also used as a meta-word, something that
represents an arbitrary name. (E.g., a reference to a newsgroup "net.foo"
means "any old newsgroup" or perhaps "any old newsgroup in the net.*
category".) Another sucf meta-word is "bar" (e.g., net.foo.bar).
An "Orphaned Response" is generated by "notes" sites running old versions of
the "notesfiles" software. Because of the way articles loop around in the net
"notes" sometimes loses track of the subject. When this happens, it fills in
"Orphaned Response" as a default subject. This is fixed in recent versions of
"notes" but, unfortunately, not every site is running up-to-date code. If you
see an Orphaned Response and you make a followup, please try to
reinstate a useful subject line.
"MOTOS", "MOTSS", and "MOTAS" mean "Member Of The Opposite Sex", "Member Of
The Same Sex" and "Member Of The Appropriate Sex", respectively. They are
used as shorthands when discussing interactions among the genders. "SO"
stands for "Significant Other", a neutral way of referring to your
boy/girl friend, spouse, or otherwise attached person.
The line eater was a bug that popped up in an older version of news that
would occasionally "eat" parts of people's articles if the article began with
white space (e.g., a blank line). Before the bug was fixed people used to
avoid the line eater by putting an obligatory first line in their articles
called a "bug killer" or some variation thereof. While the bug is no longer
around, many people still use the "bug killer" line because of tradition (or
inertia).
There are other examples of terms that have meaning only in netnews besides
these, but to give an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of this document.
Q: Who are the net.gods?
The net.gods are (supposedly) those in charge of the net. Actually, USENET
is closer to an anarchy there is no real central authority. However, there is
a group that does a pretty good impersonation of authority: 'The Backbone'.
The Backbone is a collection of computers (also known as 'sites') that most
of the USENET traffic flows through. Because of this, these sites are usually
the biggest and most expensive to run in USENET (they regularly run monthly
phone bills in the thousands of dollars). Because they generally put more
than everyone else into the net and because they are literally the backbone of
the net structure, they have more say in what happens on the net. For that
reason, the Site Administrators of each backbone site could be called
net.gods, though that overstates their powers a little.
Below the backbone SAs in authority come the SAs of the rest of the sites on
the net (including your own). These are the people who generally have the
power to decide who gets on the net and who doesn't. These are the people who
can kick you off if you become a burden to the net.
Q: What makes a topic appropriate for a newsgroup?
Appropriateness of a topic is vitally important to keeping netnews a useful
system. If you start discussing a topic in the wrong newsgroup, not only do
you clutter up the mistaken group, but you also deprive those who read the
correct newsgroup the chance to discuss it.
A list is posted regularly to an administrative newsgroup (see below) that
gives a short description of what each newsgroup is for. Please look that
list over CAREFULLY before posting any topic.
Q: What is a meta-discussion?
A discussion about discussions.
One of the greatest loads on the net has been an overabundance of
meta-discussions, such as:
#1: A miscellaneous article drifting off the subject of the newsgroup.
#2: A complaint about how #1 did not belong in the group.
#3: Someone claims that it did belong and that #2 is just full of it.
#4: #3 is a peon and doesn't know what he is talking about. This
newsgroup is for discussions of foo and #1 was discussing bar.
#5: No it wasn't!
#6: Yes it was!
And so on.
To prevent this, follow this principle...
** Meta-discussions should never be held in the newsgroup that they are
discussing. **
If you wish to start a meta-discussion, or you see a meta-discussion
forming, post an article to the group stating the topic of the meta-discussion
(or pointing out that the existing discussion is really a meta-discussion)
then add a "Followup-To:" control line to the header of your article so that
followups will be directed OUT of the newsgroup and into one of the
appropriate administrative newsgroups (net.news or net.news.group).
However, starting a meta-discussion is not your only recourse in this
situation. If all you wish to do is redirect the topic to a more appropriate
newsgroup, then post a followup saying you are doing so, cross-post it to the
appropriate newsgroup and include a "Followup-To:" control line to direct
further comments to the other newsgroup.
Q: What assumptions are made about people posting to netnews?
** It is assumed that anyone making a posting is a person who cares
highly for the usefulness of a calm dialogue about possibly emotional
issues. If you cannot live up to this assumption, perhaps you should
reconsider posting your opinions to the net. **
Q: How often should I post?
Rarely.
Don't feel obligated to comment on everything that is posted on the net. If
you do, then limit most of your comments to e-mail and only post those
responses that are clearly thought out and that contribute productively to the
conversjtion.
The rule to remember is...
** Always mail, unless you deem it appropriate to post. **
How you go about deciding whether an article is appropriate is a detailed
and subjective process that I will not attempt to cover generally. Various
guidelines can be found throughout this document.
Q: Such as?
Keep to the subject of the newsgroup. If you are not sure what that is,
look at the newsgroup mod.newslists for a short (one-line) description of each
newsgroup. Also, pay attention to how others talk about the newsgroups
subject. (But remember that they to may make mistakes. If it looks like they
are violating the netiquette, DO NOT imitate them.)
If you are writing an article that is unrelated to the subject of the
newsgroup you are posting it to, don't try to legitimize it by tacking on 1-2
lines of relevant statements. For example, do not discuss the quality of a
joke in net.jokes and then tell a joke at the end to somehow make it look as
if the article belonged to the newsgroup.
Q: How long should I wait till I make my first posting?
It is strongly advised that you wait for at least a week (if not more).
Just sit back and read what's going on, there is no hurry. If you absolutely
must comment during this period, send a message through e-mail.
After a week you should be able to see a pattern to how people respond.
By looking at the average postings and comparing them with the netiquette, you
should see what NOT to do. (You can learn how not to make an ass out of
yourself by seeing how others make asses out of themselves.)
Q: What are 'quotations'?
When you post a followup to an article, others who read it may not
understand what it refers to since it may have been as much as a week since
they saw the original article. Therefore news provides a method for quoting
previous articles in your followups. (At least, newer news software does. If
yours doesn't you will have to do it by hand. See your local manuals to find
out more about the mechanics of quotations.) Quotations are usually
identified by having some character (typically '>') tacked onto the beginning
of each line of the quote.
Quotes are tremendously useful, but they are also a big problem. Each time
you quote a previous article you are, in fact, reposting that portion of the
original article back on the net. Thus it is EXTREMELY important that you
attempt to trim these quotes.
** The general rule to follow is that only 1-4 sentences of the original
text should be used when you refer to it. If you need more than this,
then SUMMARIZE. (Remember that word; it is one of the most important
on the net.) **
Q: What if I want to include copyrighted material?
Short extracts are ok, as long as you give credit to the source of the
material. Reproduction in whole is strictly forbidden by U.S. and
international copyright law (unless you get permission to do so by the owner
of the copyright).
Q: Is there anything I shouldn't post?
Posting to netnews is to be viewed as publication. Because of this, do not
post instructions for how to do some illegal act (sucfias jamming radar or
obtaining cable TV service illegally); also do not ask how to do illegal acts.
Q: To whom should a poster's opinions be attributed?
All opinions or statements made in articles posted to netnews should be
taken as the opinions of the person who wrote the article. They do not
necessjrily represent the opinions of the person's employer, the owner of the
computer that the article was posted from, or anyone involved with USENET or
its underlying networks. All responsibilities for statements made in USENET
messages rests with the individual posters of the messages. Many people
include explicit disclaimers in their signature files. If you do this,
remember to keep it short.
Q: How should I handle followups?
Since netnews is a two-entity relationship between the poster and the
reader, it is important that both cooperate in the procedures for handling
followups.
When a poster originally posts an article to netnews, he or she
automatically takes on certain responsibilities (not the least of which is
that the posting should contribute to the discussion in a productive way).
These responsibilities involve 'followup management'.
Because e-mail is emphasized over netnews, those who wish to reply to a
posting should normally do so through e-mail. (They could post, but again,
only if it contributes productively to the discussion.) However, the rest of
the net may be interested in what the current status of the topic is.
Therefore, it is the poster's responsibility to gather all responses to the
original posting, and to 'summjrize' them for the net community.
This method is most useful when a poster asks a question of the net
community. Instead of several readers posting answers that could repeat each
other, all answers should go directly to the person who asked the question.
That person should then post the answer (or list of answers).
To summjrize -- The posters' responsibility is to attempt to manage in some
way the responses they receive to their postings, and the readers'
responsibility is to reply to postings through e-mail unless they have
something more to say than just an answer to a question.
Q: How do others on the net handle followups?
The methods vary, but I can recommend one that is used by many on the net.
This method works only if your news system has the ability to 'unread' an
article, that is, to return an article you have read to to the list of unread
articles. That way, when you go through the news a second time, it will be
presented to you again as if it were new. (For example, in 'rn' this command
would be the key 'M'.)
The method is simple: Read through the news as usual. Any time you read an
article that you find interesting and would like to comment on (whether via a
followup posting or via e-mail), mark it as unread, but don't respond yet.
When you have finished a complete pass through the news, go away for a while
(maybe even a day) and don't make the replies until you have had a chance to
think about them. Then rerun news and send a followup to each unread article
as appropriate (or don't if you like. Responding to an article is never
imperitive.)
The usefulness of this method is that it gives you a chance to cool down
after reading something that made you hot under the collar. This way you can
think more clearly about how to respond to it, thus making your replies
clearer than they would have been if you had replied immediately.
Q: Is there any procedure I should follow when making a followup?
1) Decide beforehand what it is you want to say.
2) Decide if what you say needs to be posted to the net. If not, then
you should mail it (or not send it at all).
3) Get a working copy of a posting with a quoted version of the article
you are following up to.
4) Comment on those parts of the article you wish to comment on.
5) Remove any part of the quote that has nothing to do with your point.
6) Attempt to trim down (without losing the meaning) that part of the
quotation you DO comment on.
7) If the quoted part is still large, summjrize it as best you can.
8) If you can, run it past a spellchecker. Otherwise check it yourself.
9) Read it over and make sure it will make sense to the reader.
10) Check the header information.
a) is the subject correct?
b) is it cross-posted to an incorrect newsgroup? (n/a e-mail)
c) is its distribution suitable for the subject? (n/a e-mail)
d) if you wish to move the topic to another newsgroup then
add a "Followup-To:" line.
11) Post/Mail it.
Q: Who is responsible for making the net understandable?
Everyone, of course, but some more than others...
** While acknowledging that any useful dialogue between two or more
individuals requires that both the poster and the readers attempt to
make clear what is being discussed with as little "jumping to
conclusions" as possible, it is ultimately the responsibility of the
poster to make a posting as understandable as possible. If a
misunderstanding occurs, it is up to the poster to provide a calm
clarification. Posters have no right to call into question the
intellectual capabilities of those readers who misinterpret their
postings. **
To be fair, there should be a statement of a reader's responsibilities...
** The reader is obligated to closely analyze a posting before "jumping
to a conclusion" about its contents. **
Q: What should I do if I'm uncertain about the meaning of a posting?
** If the reader is uncertain about the meaning of a posting, then the
place for further clarification is in e-mail, not netnews. However,
if you have a rebuttal and NOT a request for clarification, then
netnews IS the appropriate place (as long as the rebuttal does not
turn into a personal attack). **
Q: How do I handle sarcasm?
One problem with electronic communication is that many of the subtleties of
language are not always obvious. A major part of communication is body
language and you can't see the other person when using a computer. It's not
always possible to understand what a poster meant by their comments. Also,
since netnews is not interactive communication, you can't immediately confirm
posters intent; it becomes easy to misunderstand what they are saying in such
an environment.
** Be careful in how you interpret postings to netnews. **
There are many guidelines for improving understanding between users on
netnews; many are covered in this document, others will become apparent with
time. For now, let us look at sarcasm.
If you are reading a posting and you find it impossible to believe that the
poster is being serious, assume that they are not. If you are still unsure,
ask the poster (through e-mail) to confirm their intentions.
** If you are the one posting sarcasm, choose your words carefully. **
NEVER assume that your sarcasm will be obvious. Given the number of people
on the network, it is inevitable that someone will misinterpret what you say.
This does not mean that they are in any way stupid. It could be that they
weren't in a good mood at the time they read it and weren't thinking too
clearly. Always give the reader the benefit of the doubt.
An important tool for clearing up most problems with sarcasm is what is
known on USENET as 't'e smiley face'. It is formed by the three characters
':-)' (look at it sideways). Smiley faces are usually used to convey facial
expressions that add to the statement being made. Also common are ':-(' for a
frown and ';-)' for a wink.
A bit of advice, use sarcasm sparingly. It can help to lighten up an
otherwise serious topic, but the net's tolerance for it is pretty low
(especially if all you seem to do is be sarcastic).
Q: What is Rot13?
Certain newsgroups (like net.jokes) have messages in them that may be
offensive to some people. To make sure that these messages are not read
unless they are explicitly requested, these messages should be encrypted. The
standard encryption method is to rotate each letter by thirteen characters so
that an "a" becomes an "n", "b" becomes "o", etc. This is known on the net as
'Rot13'.
Most of the news software has ways of encrypting and decrypting messages.
Your local manuals can tell you how the software on your system works or you
can use the Unix command: "tr [a-z][A-Z] [n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]".
When you rotate a message, the word "rot13" should be placed in the
"Subject:" line in the header.
Q: What is a *SPOILER*?
When you post something that might spoil a surprise for other people, such
as a movie review that discusses details of the plot, please precede that part
of your article with a warning (*SPOILER*) so that readers can decide whether
to skip the article. When you post an article with a spoiler in it make sure
the word "spoiler" is also part of the "Subject:" header line.
Q: What is a flame?
A 'flame' is a strongly worded opinion stated without substantiation. It
often includes a negative comment directed at an individual or group.
(Sometimes the "group" is, by implication, anybody who has the audacity to
disagree with the poster.) Further, as it's name implies, it is usually an
emotionally 'heated' message, and may well lead to equally emotional retorts
(which are likewise flames). For example:
"It's obvious that automobiles are dangerous and should be banned."
"That's a stupid opinion! What a jerk!"
"Why don't you just go crawl back in your hole?"
"It's plain that your limited intellectual capability doesn't allow
you to understand something so simple even a slug could follow it."
Note that the original statement in this example might have been intended
sarcastically (a smiley-face would have made it clearer), but after one
emotional reply is posted the entire discussion might degenerate into
name-calling.
Now that we have set down what flaming is, you should understand the netnews
policy on flames...
** NEVER EVER POST FLAMES TO THE NET. **
There are no exceptions. Even if the flame is only one line long surrounded
by 99 other lines of otherwise useful information, it still does not belong.
If you must flame a person, do it ONLY through e-mail. Do not burden the
rest of netnews with your flammable opinions.
There is a gray border between flames and advice. Some people, when giving
advice, do it in a somewhat 'flameboyant' way without necessjrily meaning to
do so. If you see what you think might be a flame on the net, read it over
carefully. See if it isn't just advice presented on a hot plate.
And please, if you do see a flame on the net, do not compound it by flaming
back ON THE NET. That would be like trying to prevent someone from burning
down your house by blowing it up yourself!
Q: How closely should I watch spelling?
As should be obvious by now, you should be proud of the contents of your
postings before posting them and should have put care into how they were made.
Along with other considerations, this also entails spelling.
Mistakes will be made, and we should try to be forgiving of those who make
them. However...
** It is ultimately the posters' responsibility to make their
articles as clear of spelling mistakes as possible. **
If you are a chronic misspeller, you may wish to see if your system has a
spelling checker. If it does, use it. It will make everyone's day a lot
brighter.
A related topic to discuss here is that of the 'spelling flame'. Just as
there are chronic misspellers on the net, there are those who cringe whenever
they see a misspelled word. They have been raised to be sensitive to spelling
and DO find it difficult to read misspelled articles where others might not
even notice the mistakes. Some of these people (you may be one) may feel
compelled to point out to people that they made a spelling mistake (or a
mistake in grammjr, etc.)
** If you feel tempted to post a spelling flame -- *don't*. *ever*. **
If you must make a spelling flame, PLEASE do it through e-mail.
For some help on writing style in general, see:
o Cunningham and Pearsall, "How to Write For the World of Work"
o Strunk & White, "Elements of Style"
The above references are both excellent books. Cunningham is a standard in
tech writing classes and won an award for the best tech writing book from the
Association for Teaching of Technical Writing.
Writing Style:
o Write BELOW the readers' reading level. The average person in the U.S.
reads on a 5th grade level, the average professional on about the 12th
grade level.
o Keep paragraphs short and sweet. Keep sentences shorter and sweeter. This
means "concise", not cryptic.
o White space (space, tab, blank lines) is not wasted space. It greatly
improves clarity. But don't overdo it; double-spacing your text is going
too far.
o Pick your words to have only ONE meaning. Vagueness is considered artistic
in literary circles. We are not literary here.
o People can grasp only about seven things at once. This means ideas in a
paragraph, major sections, etc.
o There are several variations on any one sentence. A passive, questioning
or negative sentence takes longer to read.
Net Style:
o Subtlety is not communicated well in written form, especially over a
computer.
o The above applies to humor as well.
o It's MUCH easier to read a mixture of upper and lower case letters.
o Leaving out articles (sucf as "the", "a", "an", etc.) for "brevity" mangles
the meaning of your sentences and takes longer to read. It saves you time
at your reader's expense.
o Be careful of contextual meanings of words. For instance, I used
"articles" above just now. In the context of netnews, it has a different
meaning than I intended.
o Remember - this is an international network, some people may use language
differently because they come from a different culture.
o Remember - your future employer may be reading your articles.
Q: What should I do if I see someone breaking the netiquette?
Whatever you do, don't imitate them.
If you do see an offense, assume that it was an honest mistake. Possibly
send the offender a short CALM note through e-mail pointing out the offense.
Do not, however, forcefully accuse them of wrongdoing (especially on the net)
as this solves nothing and only creates bad feelings that could turn a simple
mistake into a major flame war.
Q: What should I do if a newsgroup starts to deteriorate into flaming?
Ignore the flaming. Instead of adding fuel to the fire by complaining
yourself, try to divert the energies of the participants into more useful and
productive pursuits. If you see a discussion collapsing, change the topic or
just generally add something productive. Don't attack the legitimacy of the
old topic. Instead, try to woo the posters away from it with a more
productive discussion.
Just because others are flaming unproductively doesn't mean you have to to.
Q: What should I do about fanatics?
Don't argue with fanatics This is true for any side of any issue. You are
not likely to change their mind and it just annoys the rest of the net if you
try.
The only thing worse then a fanatic, is someone who argues with a fanatic.
Q: Why is there garbage on the net and what can I do to alleviate it?
According to Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap."
If you take that into account, you might be amazed that the net has as much
a content as it does.
That does not mean that you should accept garbage, of course. Just don't
expect it to go away by itself.
The only way to fight the garbage is if you are willing to put out the
effort to do so. You can't expect others to do it for you. If you do, you
should reconsider participating in the net at all.
If you wish to alleviate it then you should (1) follow the netiquette and
(2) urge others to do so. When urging others, do so calmly. Most people
will not pay attention to you if you beat them over the head with the
netiquette. They are even more likely to violate it just out of spite.
Q: Any other advice?
Never forget that the person on the other side of the screen is human.
Your postings reflect on YOU. Be proud of them.
Think carefully about your audience.
When quoting, Summjrize Summarize Summarize!
The best postings are those thought out over a long period of time.lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (07/23/86)
This was originally going to be a reply, but I felt it had some mild entertainment value, so here it is for public consumption and condemnation. In article <926@tekig5.UUCP> the latest netiquette article says: >connected together over a network that spans most of North America, Western >Europe and some areas of the South Pacific. Japan and Korea are not in the South Pacific. I think there are also sites in Israel, which is in Asia. I'm not sure that Australia likes to be called an "area of the South Pacific." > ** The use of USENET is a PRIVELEGE. ** FLAME ON!!! As long as you're shouting, it's PRIVILEGE FLAME OFF!!! :-) of course >entire network. The phone bills at times can be enormous (sometimes over >$1,000 a week for a single computer). You might add A single posting of a large source file costs the net (as a whole) thousands of dollars. If someone requests something large, e-mail it to them, don't post it. Better yet, send a short note saying that you are willing to send it, unless they can get it from someone closer. Even better, flame them to a crisp for not getting it from the moderator of mod.sources. >... From now on, we will discuss netnews etiquette only. Not strictly true--there are several more side comments about not abusing mail. For instance: "Possibly send the offender a short CALM note through e-mail pointing out the offense." > Netnews is organized by subject into separate 'newsgroups'. There are over >150 newsgroups in netnews dealing with subjects ranging from bird watching to More like 250. Plus any local groups. > Science newsgroups discuss the natural sciences (plus a few of the unnatural >ones) such as physics, astronomy, etc. How about mentioning some of the unnatural ones? I found myself wondering if astronomy was unnatural. >... The main groups in this section are net.news and net.news.group, plus >mod.announce.newusers (the newsgroup you are currently reading). Isn't net.* changing to world.*, or other things? There are a bunch of net.*'s in this document. (As it happens, I'm not reading mod.announce.newusers. :-) >Generally, moderators do just what you would do IF you adhered to the >netiquette. They do not censor your writing, they serve as a means >to prevent a discussion from become to [sic] voluminous for USENET to handle. This is unclear. The first sentence appears to say that the moderator will edit your article, and the second does not adequately clarify it. This could be taken to mean: "The moderators actively censor your article, but for the good of the net we won't call this censorship." A recent new moderator who took this attitude was roundly flamed for exceeding his authority. Perhaps you should add something to the effect that "To this end, most moderators simply accept or reject articles." > ** When answering someone's question, *never* post the answer. ** This is very much overstated. I can think of three situations where it is entirely valid to post the answer. 1) if you happen to KNOW that you're the only person with the answer. Example: "Why did the author of rn use the silly C style he did?" 2) if the question is such that nobody will come up with the same answer. Example: "What is your favorite character from all of literature, and why?" 3) if the question is addressed to a particular someone of indeterminate location. Example: "Will some official representative of the Foo Bar Company please comment on this, if you are on the net?" In addition, there is the problem of answering a question posed by someone to whom you can't send mail. This is a situation where one has to use one's best judgement. Making blanket assertions about never posting answers will only cause people to ignore the document. Kinda like setting the speed limit to 55. > However, there are a few that do warrant your attention. They are: >'Subject:', 'Distribution:', and 'Newsgroup:'. That's "Newsgroups:"! >... "Newsgroup:" describes which newsgroup the article should be posted in. Newsgroups: !! >..."Newsgroup:" line allows you to post it to more than one. While the Newsgroups: !!! > To cross-post, you just enter all the newsgroup names you wish to cross-post >to on the "Newsgroup:" control line. It's that simple. Newsgroups: !!!! (And it's not that simple. They have to separate the newsgroups with commas. Some people have had their whole day ruined...) >... "Newsgroup:" line (most news software will let you edit not only the the Newsgroups: !!!!! >o There is an extra header line called 'Followup-To:' that was designed for "Followup-To:" is not mentioned in the list above. I can see an argument for not doing so, but it should be thought about, anyway. Maybe it has already, who knows? >Q: How should I handle followups? This section has nothing to do with followups. It has to do with replies, and with other people NOT doing followups. I suggest something like: "How should I handle answers to my questions?" > Since netnews is a two-entity relationship between the poster and the >reader, it is important that both cooperate in the procedures for handling >followups. Make that: ...in the procedures for reducing redundant followups. > When a poster originally posts an article to netnews, he or she >automatically takes on certain responsibilities (not the least of which is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that the posting should contribute to the discussion in a productive way). >These responsibilities involve 'followup management'. > > Because e-mail is emphasized over netnews, those who wish to reply to a >posting should normally do so through e-mail.... >Therefore, it is the poster's responsibility to gather all responses to the >original posting, and to 'summarize' them for the net community. In practice, this never works unless the original question asker uses the magic words, "Mail to me, and I will summarize to the net." To say that this will happen automatically, or even that it SHOULD, is deluding to new users and thus counterproductive. You should stress that the *offer* of summarizing should be made by the original poster, not that this does or should happen automatically. Indeed, there have been times when people have become upset because their private reply to an article was later posted to the world without permission. The de facto assumption of the net is that e-mail is kept private unless some mention was made, either in the original article, or the reply, about summarizing to the net. On top of this, there may be some people that I don't trust to summarize what I think. >Q: How do others on the net handle followups? *THIS* is the question that should say "How should I handle followups?" or better, "How do I avoid posting a redundant followup?" > The methods vary, but I can recommend one that is used by many on the net. I've forgetten who "I" is. >... >think about them. Then rerun news and send a followup to each unread article >as appropriate (or don't if you like. Responding to an article is never >imperitive.) FLAME ON!!! That's "imperative"! FLAME OFF!!! :-) again >Q: Is there any procedure I should follow when making a followup? > > 1) Decide beforehand what it is you want to say. ... > 9) Read it over and make sure it will make sense to the reader. 9a) Let someone else read it over your shoulder and see if it makes sense to the reader. > 10) Check the header information. > ... > 11) Post/Mail it. > > >Q: Who is responsible for making the net understandable? > > ...it is ultimately the responsibility of the > poster to make a posting as understandable as possible.... I like the analogy that C. S. Lewis came up with: writing unambiguously is like driving sheep up a country lane--if there is a gate open on either side, someone will go through it. Good writing shuts all the gates before the sheep get there, not after. > If you are reading a posting and you find it impossible to believe that the >poster is being serious, assume that they are not. If you are still unsure, >ask the poster (through e-mail) to confirm their intentions. Another very important rule of thumb: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. (I don't remember who said this.) In other words, if you aren't sure whether they are attacking you, they probably aren't. More needless flames arise because the person you were flaming back at wasn't flaming in the first place. Always give the writer the benefit of the doubt. > ** If you are the one posting sarcasm, choose your words carefully. ** > > NEVER assume that your sarcasm will be obvious. Given the number of people ... >clearly. Always give the reader the benefit of the doubt. >Your local manuals can tell you how the software on your system works or you >can use the Unix command: "tr [a-z][A-Z] [n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]". This is not portable. In the first place, you need quotes around the arguments. On top of that, it won't work on V7 and BSD systems. I believe the following to be completely portable: tr '[a-m][n-z][A-M][N-Z]' '[n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]' (Note that on BSD systems this translates square brackets to themselves, which is okay. Of course, they could leave out the brackets entirely.) >Q: What is a flame? > > A 'flame' is a strongly worded opinion stated without substantiation. >It often includes a negative comment directed at an individual or group. > ... > > ** NEVER EVER POST FLAMES TO THE NET. ** > > There are no exceptions. Even if the flame is only one line long surrounded >by 99 other lines of otherwise useful information, it still does not belong. > > If you must flame a person, do it ONLY through e-mail. Do not burden the >rest of netnews with your flammable opinions. > > There is a gray border between flames and advice. Some people, when giving >advice, do it in a somewhat 'flameboyant' way without necessarily meaning to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >do so. If you see what you think might be a flame on the net, read it over >carefully. See if it isn't just advice presented on a hot plate. FLAME ON!!!!!!!! When I give advice on a hot plate, I MEAN to do so! Some people have grown(?) up with parents that use emotion as the signal that Something Important is about to be Uttered. These people don't respond to reason, and need to have their ears sizzled off before you have their attention. Granted there are times that such "advice" should be restricted to e-mail, but there are other times when it is appropriate to SHOUT on the net: 1) when the scuzbucket says "Send flames to /dev/null". 2) when the net is in danger of following a false leader to utter destruction. Example: the recent junker crisis. 3) when you want to flame a class of idiots without making any personal enemies. Example: you wish to try to discourage the perverts who post non-rumors to net.rumor. 4) when you wish to make a point that the @#$&@#$% SOBs will remember. Example: this flame. 5) when you are one of the net.gods, and nobody's remembering their netiquette, and SOMEONE has to remind them. 6) when you flame for literary effect, and can do so without offending anyone. SO THERE!!! FLAME OFF. Of course, none of this excuses lying or libel, and flames should be clearly labeled like the opinion page in the newspaper, but they have their uses. Good writing doesn't have to read like a technical journal. Trying to force the net into a sterile, emotionless mold will break the forcer, not the forcee. > And please, if you do see a flame on the net, do not compound it by flaming >back ON THE NET. That would be like trying to prevent someone from burning >down your house by blowing it up yourself! The analogy limps somewhat. It's a bit more like you and the burglar and maybe the police swapping buckshot. One shot won't bring the house down, but there's a cumulative effect on the habitability of the house. The question is: do you really have to shoot at this burglar, or will he slink off given the chance? > Writing Style: > >o Write BELOW the readers' reading level. The average person in the U.S. > reads on a 5th grade level, the average professional on about the 12th > grade level. This is balderdash. If nobody ever wrote above somebody's reading level, nobody would ever read better. Or are you of the misguided but unfortunately popular opinion that people should only learn from graded textbooks? >o Pick your words to have only ONE meaning. Vagueness is considered artistic > in literary circles. We are not literary here. This is also balderdash, in the sense that there are very few words in the language that have only one meaning, and we would be hard pressed to write in that subset of the language. Oh, that isn't what you meant? Physician, heal thyself. Furthermore, who says we aren't literary here? Or shouldn't be? Who is being the stuffeder shirt here, the literary or the anti-literary person? I thought I just read something about considering Usenet articles to be "published." If that ain't literary, what is? There is a semblance of a valid point here, however, which is: Do not write ambiguous sentences unless you intend to, and you know the consequences, and find them acceptable. >o People can grasp only about seven things at once. This means ideas in a > paragraph, major sections, etc. This document violates this at the Question/Answer level. No wonder I'm so confused. >o There are several variations on any one sentence. A passive, questioning > or negative sentence takes longer to read. Is that so? >o Subtlety is not communicated well in written form, especially over a > computer. It can be communicated well if you set people up to expect it. This is just part of good writing. >o The above applies to humor as well. I'm sorry to hear that net.jokes disagrees with you. >o It's MUCH easier to read a mixture of upper and lower case letters. iS tHaT sO? >o Leaving out articles (such as "the", "a", "an", etc.) for "brevity" mangles > the meaning of your sentences and takes longer to read. It saves you time > at your reader's expense. I agree, for once. Furthermore, expressing your ideas in a "write-only" language denies you an audience, since people will simply skip the article. >o Remember - this is an international network, some people may use language > differently because they come from a different culture. > >o Remember - your future employer may be reading your articles. ...and your future employer is definitely from a different culture. :-) Also, Remember, not everyone is using the same news software, terminal, or network. Many articles that show up on Usenet were written by people who never heard of Usenet, let alone Usenet etiquette. > If you do see an offense, assume that it was an honest mistake... The "Never attribute to malice" quote might go here nicely. > The only thing worse then a fanatic, is someone who argues with a fanatic. That's a fanatical statement if I ever heard one! Mind you, I'm not arguing with it... > According to Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap." Actually, the netiquette document is an exception. I'd say it's about 10% crap. The other 90% is pretty good, the tenor of this article notwithstanding. > That does not mean that you should accept garbage, of course. Just don't >expect it to go away by itself. I don't. Why do think I'm writing this? > If you wish to alleviate it then you should (1) follow the netiquette and >(2) urge others to do so. When urging others, do so calmly. Most people >will not pay attention to you if you beat them over the head with the >netiquette. They are even more likely to violate it just out of spite. You DON'T have to do it calmly. You DO have to know how to harness your emotions to produce the desired effect. USENET IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE, A TECHNICAL JOURNAL!!!!! I will, however, entertain the argument that the netiquette document must be greatly overstated to have the desired effect. There's a nice irony in there somewhere... >Q: Any other advice? > > Never forget that the person on the other side of the screen is human. > > Your postings reflect on YOU. Be proud of them. > > Think carefully about your audience. > > When quoting, Summarize Summarize Summarize! > > The best postings are those thought out over a long period of time. And, lastly, don't SHOUT unless you NEED to. [Erk frits! I have a headache from reading my own article!] Larry Wall sdcrdcr!lwall
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/24/86)
In article <2895@sdcrdcf.UUCP> lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes: >This was originally going to be a reply, but I felt it had some mild >entertainment value, so here it is for public consumption and condemnation. >FLAME ON!!! Gag. What an arrogant jerk. This guy writes as if he wrote the program or something. >Indeed, there have been times when people have become upset because their >private reply to an article was later posted to the world without permission. >The de facto assumption of the net is that e-mail is kept private unless >some mention was made, either in the original article, or the reply, about >summarizing to the net. What is the legal status of e-mail? Since, as has been mentioned recently in this newsgroup, the copyright of mail is with the originator, and posting of copyrighted material is forbidden, perhaps the same could be said for the unpermitted posting of received e-mail. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) (07/24/86)
In article <926@tekig5.UUCP> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen) writes: > ** When making a followup, check the subject line and change it if it is > no longer correct. ** >o There is an extra header line called 'Followup-To:' that was designed for > use in cross-posting and redirecting topics. These remind me of a proposal I made a few months ago, to which I received zero feedback. I wish posting software would encourage this sort of thinking. Specifically, before sending, but after the article is written, the software should query newsgroup by newsgroup what its status is. The responses [yfn] would mean: y Yes, post to this newsgroup. f Followups should still be directed to this newsgroup. n No, this newsgroup is inappropriate. The default "Followup-To" line, in case all groups get a y/n response, would be the first group only. (That is currently done by some posting software, I've been told.) ucbvax!brahms!weemba Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (07/25/86)
In article <14980@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Matthew P. Wiener writes: >Specifically, >before sending, but after the article is written, the software should query >newsgroup by newsgroup what its status is. The responses [yfn] would mean: > y Yes, post to this newsgroup. > f Followups should still be directed to this newsgroup. > n No, this newsgroup is inappropriate. > >The default "Followup-To" line, in case all groups get a y/n response, would >be the first group only. (That is currently done by some posting software, >I've been told.) The idea has some merit. I'm just not sure how effective it would be. The people who already conscienciously edit the Newsgroups: and Followup-To: lines would be irritated by the extra overhead and remove the check. The people who don't will just blast through with carriage returns, or use the version the former people deleted the check from. The alternative is, horror of horrors, education. This can happen at several levels. The netiquette document is the first, hopefully. Next comes all the comments one sees such as "I've directed followups to net.foo to save wear and tear on net.bar." Then there are flames one gets for blowing it. Lastly, the rn/Pnews system could put out a suggestion to think about the newsgroups, like it currently suggests that the quoted article be trimmed down. I hesitate to add more verbosity to rn/Pnews, but I also hesitate to make the good guys pay for the sins of the bad guys. Maybe what we need is a poster that analyzes long-term posting patterns. If the guy NEVER cuts down the newsgroups line, or trims down the quoted text, it starts jawboning. If that does no good, it starts asking questions. If that does no good, it (secretly) solicits flames from the net.gods. If those do no good, it starts adding nasty notes to the outgoing messages. If those do no good, it starts taking the initiative for trimming things down itself. Shades of junker! The difference being that it is junked at the source, and is junked everywhere, including the posting machine, so the guy knows it. Then we could delete his .newsrc. His .cshrc! His login!! The SA's favorite game!!! Etc. 1/2 :-) Of course, this still doesn't prevent him from deleting the check. And maybe he's never been in a position where he ought to have chopped down the newsgroups, so we've just screwed an innocent. There, you now have some non-null feedback, at least in terms of verbiage. Action will stay in the null category, without more consensus. Larry Wall sdcrdcf!lwall