chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/23/85)
Based on the feedback I've been getting, I wanted to post and updated
version of my software suggestions. Please feel free to comment further --
this is more or less what I'm looking at as an implementation guide, so if
we don't change it now, it'll turn into code (at which point it will be too
late, of course...)
The line length limitation suggestion, while an interesting intellectual
idea, has some bizarre practical implications. I'm also not terribly sure
it would solve anything at this point, so I'm dropping it. There may be
better ways of looking at this later.
Followup-fan-in: A better (and probably easier to implement) form of
followup-fan-in has been suggested. Rather than mung out the header of
followups, mung out the header of all articles with a non-null
'followup-to' so that it will followup to the first newsgroup on the
newsgroup list.
This has the great advantage that it only modifies articles that have
no explicit 'followup-to' header line, allowing people out there to
manually override when they feel it neccessary while still
accomplishing the proper default. By adding the followup-to line, rn
will now show a header line to readers showing where the future
discussion will be, making it easier to track down an interesting
conversation (without having to make major software changes, either).
Etiquette enforcement: Jerry@oliveb has been nice enough to implement
the enforcement for net.flame. I suggest we extend it to the following
groups as well:
net.flame
net.misc
net.net-people
net.followup
net.general
Also, if the groups 'net.unix-wizards,net.unix' are cross posted,
remove 'net.unix-wizards'
There are a lot of other enforcements I'd like to make, but I want to
study the implications further before I make specific suggestions --
they aren't always clear cut. Thanks to Jerry's work, this is also
rather trivial to implement. If we decide later to do a more extensive
enforcement, it should be broken out into a separate function and file
for ease of maintenance (see my article on munc_header()).
rogue users and the hit list: This proposal is essentially unchanged, and
seems to be pretty well supported. Unfortunately, since it is a fair
amount of code I don't know when I'll get it implemented (the other two
are serious weekend hacks) and I'm considering a brute force method
temporarily.
I'm still interested in comments -- I'm specifically interested in the
feelings on the net on enforcement of those other groups -- I think a
strong case can be made for all of them that cross-postings should be
avoided (the weakest being net.net-people). For net.general, net.followup,
and net.misc, I think the proper approach would be to remove them from the
list instead of the others, but I'm still open to suggestion.
--
:From the carousel of the autumn carnival: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!stv@qantel.UUCP (Steve Vance@ex2499) (07/25/85)
In article <3023@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >rogue users and the hit list: This proposal is essentially unchanged, and > seems to be pretty well supported. HOLD ON, THERE!!! I'm a rogue user, I play rogue about three hours a day, and I don't want to be on any gosh-darned hit list just because I play rogue! What gives you the right to pick on poor rogue players, anyway? You've gone too far this time! We have rights, too! What? .... Oh, you don't mean people who play rogue? .... Oh. Nevermind. -- Steve Vance {dual,hplabs,intelca,nsc,proper}!qantel!stv dual!qantel!stv@berkeley Qantel Corporation, Hayward, CA
kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) (08/02/85)
In article <3023@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Followup-fan-in: A better (and probably easier to implement) form of > followup-fan-in has been suggested. Rather than mung out the header of > followups, mung out the header of all articles with a non-null > 'followup-to' so that it will followup to the first newsgroup on the > newsgroup list. This is a good idea. >Etiquette enforcement: Jerry@oliveb has been nice enough to implement > the enforcement for net.flame. I suggest we extend it to the following > groups as well: Etiquette enforcement for "net.flame"???! I thought that the normal rules on the net were suspended for that group. Am I mistaken? By the way I thought your site no longer carried "net.flame" anyway. > net.misc > net.net-people > net.followup > net.general for these groups the enforcement is probably fine. > There are a lot of other enforcements I'd like to make, but I want to > study the implications further before I make specific suggestions -- > they aren't always clear cut. Thanks to Jerry's work, this is also > rather trivial to implement. If we decide later to do a more extensive > enforcement, it should be broken out into a separate function and file > for ease of maintenance (see my article on munc_header()). > >rogue users and the hit list: This proposal is essentially unchanged, and > seems to be pretty well supported. Unfortunately, since it is a fair > amount of code I don't know when I'll get it implemented (the other two > are serious weekend hacks) and I'm considering a brute force method > temporarily. > >I'm still interested in comments I'm glad that you are! Why are any of the above measures necessary? The problems that brought about most of these ideas seem to have abated themselves. I have precious few moments of CPU time for news as it is, adding more overhead to the software is going to increase per article processing time and generally make the news softeare more of a mess than it already is. I for one vote no. Now whats all this about the enforcements "YOU" would like to make to the net? Do not the rest of us have a voice or an option? I really haven't detected a distinct consensus on the net pushing us in the directions you advocate. To the best of my knowledge you don't even carry "net.flame" anymore yet you still want to legislate the content of it. So what do you other SA's think? Should we implement "Hit lists" and such? Should we resort to what is essentially "book banning"? Well thats How I see it. Kyle... -- Kyle Henriksen US Snail: UCLA - Crump Institute 6417 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 OLDARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.arpa NEWARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: {ucla-cs,cepu}!ucla-cime!kyle
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/13/85)
> In article <3023@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Followup-fan-in: A better (and probably easier to implement) form of > > followup-fan-in has been suggested. Rather than mung out the header of > > followups, mung out the header of all articles with a non-null > > 'followup-to' so that it will followup to the first newsgroup on the > > newsgroup list. > > This is a good idea. This is a bad idea. What happens if I don't read net.foo, but followup to a message posted on net.bar,net.foo? I won't see any responses to my followup! I don't see any reason why followups can't just hang around the groups they started with the way they do now. > make the news softeare more of a mess than it already is. I for one vote no. 2 votes. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076