wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) (11/15/84)
Ed Hall, in a recent net.news.group article, states: > Agreed; one very good reason for anonymous postings is the ability to > make sensitive self-revelations. Another, perhaps less-justifiable > one is a posting from someone whose does not want their employer/ > administrator to know about it. > In both cases anonymous postings can contribute to freedom of speach [sic] > without any malicious intent or effect whatever. I am opposed to annonymous postings. I feel very strongly that if you think you want to post something to the net, but you don't want your employer or administrator to know about it, you simply shouldn't post it at all. For one thing, there are other methods and modes of communicating your thoughts/ideas, completely independent of this net. Maybe one of these would be more appropriate and comfortable. (This covers everything from private email or phone calls to letters to the editor, pamphlets dropped by the thousands from airplanes, skywriting, etc.) But, another, more important, objection, is that your employer/administrator is, in most cases, providing you with the opportunity to use the net in the first place. It seems quite underhanded, ungrateful, and highly inappropriate to abuse that opportunity by posting articles you or your employer/administrator might be ashamed of, or for which you have any reason to fear possible repercussions (legal, social, or other). If you have something to say, say it well and take the responsibility - identify yourself! I also maintain that a public, worldwide computer bulletin board network is hardly the forum in which to make "sensitive self-revelations," annonymously or otherwise. I suspect that, at some time in the not-too-distant future, many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public soul-searching (which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism). As they seek employment, academic contacts, etc., these netters may find, to their utter and permanent chagrin, that a possibly bizarre and often quite undesirable reputation has preceded them. The ability to post articles annonymously does NOT solve this problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility which should never appear on the net anyway. While realizing the futility of protecting people from themselves, everyone should work together to make the net an environment in which common sense, intelligence, and moderation prevail. On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... I also object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any real attempt to conceal one's true identity. Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) (? @ inside a linked list) These alterations make me work much harder than I should have to in order to find out just where and from whom an article originated. They are particularly annoying when combined with unsigned articles. Again, even if the intention is not to mislead or conceal identity, I belive it is, at best, an impolite and annoying practice. The *very* small amount of humor provided is simply not worth it; in any case, these things tend to become tedious rather quickly. W. Christensen Apollo Computer ...decvax!wivax!apollo!wendya The views expressed here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Apollo Computer, its management, or its employees.
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/16/84)
An interesting problem ... (help! net programmers, Help!) Ed Hall (E:), in a recent net.news.group article, states: E: ... one very good reason for anonymous postings is the ability to E: make sensitive self-revelations. Another, perhaps less-justifiable E: one is a posting from someone whose does not want their employer/ E: administrator to know about it. E: In both cases anonymous postings can contribute to freedom of speech [sic] E: without any malicious intent or effect whatever. W. Christensen (W:), (I think ...) replies apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) [same person?!?] W: I am opposed to anonymous postings. W: I feel very strongly that if you think you want to post something to W: the net, but you don't want your employer or administrator to know W: about it, you simply shouldn't post it at all. The reasons she lists: [I condensed it a bit] 1) ... there are other methods and modes of communicating ... completely independent of this net. [irrelevant] 2) ... your employer/administrator is, in most cases, providing you with the opportunity to use the net in the first place. It seems quite underhanded, ungrateful, and highly inappropriate to abuse that opportunity by posting articles you or your employer/administrator might be ashamed of, or for which you have any reason to fear possible repercussions (legal, social, or other). [but there are constructive uses for being anonymous] 3) If you have something to say, say it well and take the responsibility - identify yourself! [responsible views can be expressed anonymously] 4) I also maintain that a public, worldwide computer bulletin board network is hardly the forum in which to make "sensitive self-revelations," anonymously or otherwise. [a definite cost, see below] 5) ... many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public soul-searching (which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism) [when] they seek employment, academic contacts, etc., ... The ability to post articles anonymously does NOT solve this problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility which should never appear on the net anyway. [what about the netters that are using the net to advertise their eloquence? I don't care much for them either... being forced to be anonymous might help to ease the swelling of their heads] W's summary: W: While realizing the futility of protecting people from themselves, W: everyone should work together to make the net an environment in which W: common sense, intelligence, and moderation prevail. Perhaps the problem we are really discovering here is that the communication mechanism provided by the network doesn't seem to work very well for discussing complex philosophical and social issues. It was designed to carry notices, distributions, and support limited discussions of specific technical issues. For these purposes it works quite well. Anonymous postings in those contexts is clearly ridiculous. The problem is that people like to discuss complex philosophical issues. Especially the sort of people in the research industry. That's their job. I expect the more experienced managers know this very well and put up with the bit of "bad" to get the bit of "good" that comes with it. They will continue to do so as long as the revenue (the technical benefits of this network) continues to outweigh the phone bills. Obviously, Ed feels that there are discussions going on about very personal, socially polarizing issues. It seems logical to me that there are cases where one might want to remain anonymous in discussing an issue, for example abortion (perhaps only to conceal their sex). I see no good reason for disallowing particular topics simply because they are "too personal" or "non-technical". I do agree that the current technology makes discussing issues (like the one I'm discussing now) VERY difficult and that it would be very nice if someone came up with a new type of newsgroup where everyone was editing the same message (well something like that). Hopefully someone will find a way to do this before the net collapses under the weight of all that rhetoric. Until the technology arrives it is probably a moot point. It would be pretty difficult using the current software to get away with many anonymous postings if anyone cared to track you down. Perhaps we could start a newsgroup to design the kind of news software we would need to discuss complex social issues like abortion. Something that would reduce the traffic my keeping some sort of skeleton for the discussion in progress in at each site and letting people pick away at it, reformulating issues, voting on propositions, submitting rebuttals, etc. Any ideas? (forget modeling it after our government!) normac.UUCP
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/16/84)
<6182@mcvax.UUCP> cancelled from rn.
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (11/18/84)
scott@normac.UUCP: > An interesting problem ... (help! net programmers, Help!) I agree, see below. wendya@apollo.UUCP: >> 5) ... many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public >> soul-searching (which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism) >> [when] they seek employment, academic contacts, etc., ... >> The ability to post articles anonymously does NOT solve >> this problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and >> irresponsibility which should never appear on the net anyway. > [what about the netters that are using the net to advertise their eloquence? > I don't care much for them either... being forced to be anonymous might > help to ease the swelling of their heads] There is a good and bad side to the publicity one gets when being an "eloquent" speaker in a public forum such as this. The good is that it enables one to make contacts, or at least be heard of in places where one wouldn't necessary be able to go otherwise. When it comes time for one to pursue a different job, academic path, etc., such a resource is invaluable. The bad is that not everyone is going to agree with what you say, and you could alienate a lot of people (and their employers) if you persist in your argu- ments. This could be very bad when one is looking for another job or to pursue an academic path -- in many cases even a talented individual can be turned down for a job because someone "might have heard something" about them. Me personally, I do not like to think that I am so unreasonable as to turn off any of my fellow netters ... I like USENET as it is now and I wouldn't want to see it go to satellite broadcasting, since the legal issues involved would cause the old charm of the net to disappear and make things far too regimented. (Some feel this is the way things should be.) > Perhaps the problem we are really discovering here is that the > communication mechanism provided by the network doesn't seem to work > very well for discussing complex philosophical and social issues. True. However, it is the discussion of complex philosophical issues that makes USENET pleasant to me, and to many others as well (judging from the newsstats). When I first became a netter, it was largely to discuss the techological problems of communication between ARPA and UUCP. As time went on, and I dis- covered the vast range of subjects available for discussion, I broadened my reading to the newsgroups I read and post to today. > Perhaps we could start a newsgroup to design the kind of news software > we would need to discuss complex social issues like abortion. Something > that would reduce the traffic my keeping some sort of skeleton for the > discussion in progress in at each site and letting people pick away at it, > reformulating issues, voting on propositions, submitting rebuttals, etc. > Any ideas? (forget modeling it after our government!) Sounds like a good idea. Better still, is there enough interest to start up a company (USENET, Inc. for example) whose sole purpose is to design news software and sell it to Unix machines (perhaps netnews could also be written for other operating systems)? Think about it, if people are willing to pay for good software, a lot of the problems the net is experiencing would dis- appear. Also, if it is true that we are soon to be going to satellite comm- unication of netnews, there probably ought to be a base company responsible for quality transmission of data, reliablility, perhaps government (but that's another issue). Think about it ... -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/19/84)
There is a place for anonymous comments in our written society -- Moderated postings. We are all familiar with books and newspapers that protect their sources by quoting them anonymously. However, THEY IN TURN generally know who their sources are, and they are responsible for the accuracy of what is reported anonymously. Thus there is always someone who either knows the source, or who is known, and has independently verified the information reported. Truly anonymous postings, pamphlets, advertisements, etc., lead to the most scurrilous and scandalous publications and are geenrally frowned upon, and/or outright illegal, in our society. Disgust with anonymous writings is as old as Democracy. Although we all feel able to distinguish between scurrilous scandal and the facts, it's a good check and balance to avoid anonymous postings. The desire for groups that could discuss touchy issues on which people might want to talk anonymously, can be handled fairly well by a responsible moderator. How about it? - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/19/84)
wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) writes: > >Ed Hall, in a recent net.news.group article, states: >> Agreed; one very good reason for anonymous postings is the ability to >> make sensitive self-revelations. Another, perhaps less-justifiable >> one is a posting from someone whose does not want their employer/ >> administrator to know about it. >> In both cases anonymous postings can contribute to freedom of speach [sic] >> without any malicious intent or effect whatever. > >I am opposed to annonymous postings. > >I feel very strongly that if you think you want to post something to the net, >but you don't want your employer or administrator to know about it, you simply >shouldn't post it at all. For one thing, there are other methods and modes of >communicating your thoughts/ideas, completely independent of this net. Maybe >one of these would be more appropriate and comfortable. (This covers everything >from private email or phone calls to letters to the editor, pamphlets dropped >by the thousands from airplanes, skywriting, etc.) The problem with using alternative forms of communication is simply that they don't reach the same audience that posting to the network does. Most anonymous postings I've seen as moderator of mod.singles are replies on subjects being discussed on the net-- The only two ways of getting your feelings back in that situation is to have the moderator post it anonymously or to mail it to original poster. The latter case, unless the original poster posts it for you, means that most people don't see what you say. >But, another, more >important, objection, is that your employer/administrator is, in most cases, >providing you with the opportunity to use the net in the first place. It >seems quite underhanded, ungrateful, and highly inappropriate to abuse that >opportunity by posting articles you or your employer/administrator might be >ashamed of, or for which you have any reason to fear possible repercussions >(legal, social, or other). > >If you have something to say, say it well and take the responsibility - >identify yourself! Some people don't have that opportunity. Certain places such as Universities sometimes restrict netnews to read-only for students to minimize excessive volume of postings. Worse, some institutions restrict the content of postings-- we have documented cases of people getting in serious trouble because certain people at a site disagreed with something that was posted. People in a paranoid environment learn quickly that posting certain discussions isn't a good idea-- anonymous postings allow them to get around that when used properly. In a fair environment most of the need for anonymous postings is obviated-- unfortunately we aren't even close to that in reality. One of the first strong reasons for anonymous postings was net.motss, where some people were afraid of retribution if they came out of the closet. While it is hoped that usenet is above the petty bigotry of the rest of the world, it isn't always the case, unfortunately. >I also maintain that a public, worldwide computer bulletin board network is >hardly the forum in which to make "sensitive self-revelations," annonymously >or otherwise. I suspect that, at some time in the not-too-distant future, >many netters may very well bitterly regret some of their public soul-searching >(which, in some cases, borders on exhibitionism). Probably, but at the same time, many of these same people have been helped by people on the net to resolve some of their personal problems-- either by others on the net who care about them, or simply because getting it into the open allows them to deal with it themselves. That's a personal choice that each person makes-- how open to be on what is essentially a large party line. >As they seek employment, >academic contacts, etc., these netters may find, to their utter and permanent >chagrin, that a possibly bizarre and often quite undesirable reputation has >preceded them. The ability to post articles annonymously does NOT solve this >problem - it exacerbates it by legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility >which should never appear on the net anyway. While realizing the futility of >protecting people from themselves, everyone should work together to make >the net an environment in which common sense, intelligence, and moderation >prevail. Good luck-- these things happen, of course. I'm always keeping an eye out for resumes with names of people I recognize and respect off the net. Realistically, it takes a lot more for me to remember a name I DON'T want to hire off the net. Posting anonymously isn't a one person situation, there is usually someone like a moderator involved as well, and I know that I'm a lot more critical about the appropriateness of an anonymous posting (and why it is being posted anonymously) than I am about normal postings. It isn't legitimatizing excesses and irresponsibility, it is shifting the responsbility somewhat to someone other than the author-- the poster or moderator. Most anonymous articles I've seen tend to be even better thought out than regular articles. >On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... >I also object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when >such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any >real attempt to conceal one's true identity. >Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) > (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) > (? @ inside a linked list) that question mark is 'flidais', BTW. As someone who does modify header information, I'm irritated by your use of the word 'gratuitous'. Any feature can and will be used to excess, but I have very valid reasons for using 'Cheshire Chuqui' @ 'The Bistro' (or whatever I'm using this week) instead of 'Chuq Von Rospach' @ 'National Semiconductor'. First, I'm disassociating myself from national because a lot of my work on the net is mine, not National's, and the opinions and time are mine. I don't want my screwups and blunders to be taken as negative inferences on National as much as possible-- I won't be completely successful until I get onto my own machine, of course, but until then I do what I can. the other reason is that I feel that the personalizing touch says something about me, and anything I can do to depersonalize this network is a step in the right direction. It is much too easy to forget that all of those random accounts out there (with a few exceptions) are people, not just anonymous things to flame at blindly. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/20/84)
I agree with Tony Robison. There is a parallel discussion about this subject going on in fa.telecom right now, pretaining to anonymous postings to BBS's and the legal issues about who is or is not responsible for them. While I don't think the issues are clear cut, there has been at least one instance where the police have seized a system because a credit card number was anonymously posted on that system. The erewhon case has shown that for those who know how the net works, it is indeed possible to post a forged message that can't be traced. We have no way to stop such postings. However, if we encourage anonymous postings, we are potentially liable when someone advocates an illegal activity anonymously. If you really want to post something anonymously (and I do believe there are newsgroups where this makes sense) you should go through a moderator who knows who you are. This moderator presumably will ensure that the message is not going to get somebody sued before posting it. If there is a legal problem with a message, the moderator can cancel it, and can direct authorities to the person who posted it. (I really hope it never comes down to this, but the moderator shouldn't be the one sued.) Up until now, people have used good sense and not posted things that are obviously illegal. If we all continue this way, we won't have problems. However, it would be a mistake to set up software to encourage anonymous postings, since that would open the door for an arrest or lawsuit, and it would be the system administrators who would be in trouble if it happened. Mark Horton
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/25/84)
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >I agree with Tony Robison. > >There is a parallel discussion about this subject going on in fa.telecom >right now, pretaining to anonymous postings to BBS's and the legal issues >about who is or is not responsible for them. While I don't think the >issues are clear cut, there has been at least one instance where the >police have seized a system because a credit card number was anonymously >posted on that system. By anonymous postings I meant that a PO BOX system should be used that, if necessary for legal/ethical reasons, could reveal the true identity of the individual, but that would otherwise protect/allow more open discourse. I believe you see the potential benefits. >The erewhon case has shown that for those who know how the net works, >it is indeed possible to post a forged message that can't be traced. >We have no way to stop such postings. However, if we encourage anonymous >postings, we are potentially liable when someone advocates an illegal >activity anonymously. I am unsure what you mean. Is is that the user cannot be identified or is it the originating machine or some combination of both? It seems to me that at least the persistent abuser would be easy to narrow down. Besides, the argument is irrelevant since I have seen noone advocate a system that would conceal all identity and leave no way for reply. >If you really want to post something anonymously (and I do believe there >are newsgroups where this makes sense) you should go through a moderator >who knows who you are. OK. I would like to post some things anonymously and am willing to "register" with a local moderator. Here's where we need the software to assist the monitor in re-routing the return mail. I want to be able to get direct Mail replies. I think it is unreasonable to expect a moderator to do all of this. >Up until now, people have used good sense and not posted things that are >obviously illegal. If we all continue this way, we won't have problems. >However, it would be a mistake to set up software to encourage anonymous >postings, since that would open the door for an arrest or lawsuit, and >it would be the system administrators who would be in trouble if it happened. > Mark Horton I would like you to reconsider your closing paragraph. Anonymous postings is a mechanism designed to disassociate the authors person for his/her ideas. Nothing more. You could still reply to particular people via Email but you wouldn't know who they were. If anything this idea is more legally sound than the current system because it would establish an official mapping between network PO Boxes and the real people they are connected to. Scott Bryan
ag5@pucc-k (Henry C. Mensch) (11/28/84)
<<>> wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) writes: >On a related subject of somewhat lesser importance... >I also object to the gratuitous alteration of header information, even when >such alteration seems innocuous or just silly, rather than indicating any >real attempt to conceal one's true identity. >Examples: (Leo Buscaglia @ your nearest bookstore) > (Dish of the Day @ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) > (? @ inside a linked list) I am also disturbed by your use of gratuituous (spelled correctly or otherwise) here. If you will take a moment to notice my userid, you will see that it is somewhat lacking in personality. There is *NO WAY* that ag5 suggests that this account belongs to Henry Mensch (or anyone else). In addition, the path from this pucc site gets sufficiently munged-up by the time it leaves Purdue that it becomes useless. By playing with those environment variables, I am able to make my posting reflect a bit more of my personality. (For your information, the original settings which came with this userid are NAME='mensch' ; ORGANIZATION='Purdue University Computing Center'). In addition, since much of the path header information is useless, I do provide an informative signature file which indicates not only a correct path, but my name, position, place of employment, backbone sites which feed to our immediate "up-stream" site, and a pithy quote. All this in five lines or so. I am not doing anything malicious like munging the header so that articles are posted from kgbvax and the landofoz-vax. Since what I do with NAME and ORGANIZATION variables is harmless, and since I do identify all of my postings with a .signature at the end, I see no reason why I should *not* change these variables to suit my desires. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|allegra|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Season's Beatings!" ;-}
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/29/84)
> the original settings which came with this userid are > NAME='mensch' ; ORGANIZATION='Purdue University Computing Center'). After reading this, I immediately tried setting "ORGANIZATION" to my true organization name (USAMC ALMSA), exporting it, and doing a postnews. The header remained as it has always been (see above). I am a guest at Ballistics Research Labs, and wanted to put in my real activity name. It doesn't seem to work in this fashion. Is the referenced set of variables something local to the writer's shop, or should they be effective net-wide? Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (12/01/84)
> > the original settings which came with this userid are > > NAME='mensch' ; ORGANIZATION='Purdue University Computing Center'). > > After reading this, I immediately tried setting "ORGANIZATION" to my > true organization name (USAMC ALMSA), exporting it, and doing a postnews. > The header remained as it has always been (see above).... Before posting this, i exited fropm vnews, did a setenv ORGANIZATION "ICE STATION ZEBRA and got back in to vnews. It works for me. -- Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support 301/731-4100 x4227 UUCP: {seismo,decvax}!grendel!avolio ARPA: grendel!avolio@seismo.ARPA
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (12/04/84)
> > > the original settings which came with this userid are > > > NAME='mensch' ; ORGANIZATION='Purdue University Computing Center'). > > > > After reading this, I immediately tried setting "ORGANIZATION" to my > > true organization name (USAMC ALMSA), exporting it, and doing a postnews. > > The header remained as it has always been (see above).... > > Before posting this, i exited fropm vnews, did a > setenv ORGANIZATION "ICE STATION ZEBRA > and got back in to vnews. It works for me. > -- > Fred Avolio, DEC -- U{LTR,N}IX Support What I had tried originally was the plain old VARIABLE=value and exporting that works on TERM, NEWSARCHIVE, and suchlike variables. It doesn't seem to do anything. On this system, "setenv" is "not found" unless I do a "csh" first, and I really didn't want to bother with a lower-running shell just to read news. "set", by itself, lists a lot of variables and their values, including both those I set in my .profile and others, set I suppose as system defaults. I tried "set ORGANIZATION "USAMC ALMSA"" but saw no effect from this, either without or with a following "export ORGANIZATION" command. "man set" and "man setenv" get nothing here, so I am working in the dark. I'll try putting the ORGANIZATION="USAMC ALMSA" and "export ORGANIZATION" in my .profile and see if that helps. (This system runs the BRL version of 4.2 BSD, if that helps determine what variant of this variable-setting business should work.) Will Martin USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (12/04/84)
I find all of the following annoying: 1. Anonymous postings 2. Alteration of the header info 3. Signatures that are frequently longer than the articles 4. No signatures at all Now, I'm not a serious guy. In fact, there are probably a bunch of people who don't think I'm ever serious enough about anything. But there's no need to have to be funny in the header or signature. If people want to be funny, be funny in the article. If you shouldn't be funny in the article in the particular group, then why should you be funny in the header or signature? As far as anonymous postings and lack of signature, I just have this little thing about me: I like to have some handle on the person I'm "listening" or "talking" to. I realize that I'm not going to have a good picture of a person just because I know their name, but when I see names, I can associate messages and their tones with names, and after a while, I know how people feel and think. This is especially useful, since it gives further hints as to when to exercise the 'n' key. As much as I am "into" computers, I am equally "into" people, so I want more than a username to be able to associate with people. The usual comments about this being basically a new form of communication that the social fabric doesn't know how to deal with apply here. I actually think it's pretty exciting to be involved in this new form of communication that will undoubtedly be the shape of things to come. That's why I think we should be a little more serious about some things. Think about what you do when you use the phone: if the person you are calling doesn't already know who you are, you usually identify yourself, right? Why should this be any different? (If there's no signature here, it's because something didn't read my .signature file...) -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (12/06/84)
> As far as anonymous postings > and lack of signature, I just have this little thing about me: I > like to have some handle on the person I'm "listening" or "talking" > to. ---------- Sure, it's always better to have all the information you can about the speaker, especially when you're dealing with a narrow bandwidth medium like a terminal screen. But there are times when what is said is more important than who is saying it and there are times when something cannot be said openly. I think anonymous postings are overused but I also think you can't have the degree of freedom I want to see on the net if you don't allow them. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/09/84)
Here is a way to get NAME and ORGANIZATION variables into your postings:
If you are using /bin/sh, put these lines into your .profile:
export NAME ORGANIZATION
NAME="the name you want to be called" (use quotes if you intend to leave
whitespace in the text)
ORGANIZATION="whatever organization, real or imagined, you wish to be asso-
ciated with"
To actually get these into your new environment, you must either log out and
log back in again, or type:
. .profile
at the shell command level. (Note: if your PATH does not include ., you may
have to type . ./.profile.)
If you are using csh, put these into your .cshrc (.login is ok, I guess, if
you're on 4.? BSD):
setenv NAME "something or other"
setenv ORGANIZATION "something else"
You'll have to do a source .login after you're done, or type them to csh.
It works for me. Good luck. If those don't work, your machine has probably
hard-wired NAME and ORGANIZATION into inews, and the getenv() calls were
commented out.
Good luck.
--
Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ...
Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbokay@flame.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (12/15/84)
[my, that was a yummy bug-fix] Greg Skinner says in <1021@houxm.UUCP>: >To actually get (NAME & ORGANIZATION) into your new environment, you >must either log out and log back in again .... Or, of course, just type the NAME=..., ORGANIZATION=... and export ... stuff to the shell if you just want a this-time change. Kay. -- "But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?" ... mcvax!ukc!flame!kay