thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (09/02/83)
I am a little hesitant to reopen this box of horrors, but the recent spate of "foo" articles has brought me to it. A bunch of us were sitting around yesterday communicating via sound waves (a new concept!), bemoaning the fact that you always have novice users who will do this sort of thing. Since school is starting up around the country, it will probably get a LOT worse before it gets even a little better. In fact, I have noticed that net.general submissions are WAY up. Anyway, we came up with what I think is a rather neat idea. The news system (2.11, or whatever), could maintain a list of "authorized" submitters. You would get on that list by reading the netiquette (sp?) document AND answering a quiz. If you scored sufficently well on the quiz, you would be added to the list. Someone not on the list would either not be able to submit at all, or perhaps their message would have to be "vetted" by a local guru before going out to the net. Sounded to me like it would not be too hard to implement (except for "forcing" sites to install the new news version), would only discriminate against the stupid (:-), and should solve many of the "wrong group" problems we are currently seeing. Comments? =Spencer
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (09/02/83)
Regarding Spencer's proposal: [ Sorry -- out of time and didn't finish; article to follow tomorrow ] - Alan S. Watt
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/03/83)
Nothing doing. The net is a long standing exercise in freedom. Let's keep it that way. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
dann@wxlvax.UUCP (Dan Neiman) (09/13/83)
One of the problems with the netetiquette document is that it is not readily available. Put an option in the next release of news which will print the current version of the etiquette document. The inews program might also direct people to read this document (maybe the .newsrc file could have a flag indicating whether or not the document has been read?). Mailing *gentle* reminders to first-offenders also helps. dann
addw@root44.UUCP (Alain Williams) (09/14/83)
I like Spencer's idea of the news system maintaining a list of "authorised" submitters. I feel, however, that whereas a control system that relied on some local guru/priest/news-system-guardian to police it would cut down the garbage produced by new unix users it would not cut down the crass about what real programmers should or should not do. (The sort of person most likely to submit that kind of junk is the sort of person that regards him/her-self as a local guru and/or would take a joy at "beating the system" and submitting trash if he wasn't an authorised user.) The problem as I see it is how to keep the interesting newsgroups clutter free - I couldn't care less what goes into net.jokes, net.general etc. An idea we came up with here was to have closed submission newsgroups. The point being that only certain people can submit to the groups, the list of people being decided by some 'editorial board' for that group. In a way it would work like a magazine except that once you had been accepted by the 'editorial board' you could submit what you wanted. Presumably if you started submitting junk the board you remove you from the list. Ok, how will it work? The news system on each machine will know which news groups are closed submission groups and will have a list of allowable authors (in the form site!u-id). Not only will it stop new articles being submitted from illegal authors but it would quietly loose any such incoming articles. It is this last feature that would make the system work: if a particular site did not enforce the submission rules, or someone got round the censorship, the illegal news won't get far anyway -so no problem; if someone created a bad news item by nefarious means then as it was transmitted the routing info added would point a finger of guilt at the site thus allowing the net mafia to go round with the cement overshoes. There is the gist of the idea. It will allow us to have things like net.real.unix.wizards. How membership of the editorial boards is to be decided on is the sort of political rhubarb I don't want to know about. (You don't have to read a newsgroup if you decide that you don't approve of the editorial board). Alain Williams vax135!ukc!root44!addw
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/15/83)
I think it's time we starting educating the user community
in the correct usage of "Distribution". I have used it myself
on occasion, although I admit I don't entirely understand what
can be used as a Distribution argument. But there are lots of
things like concert tickets, jeeps for sale and whatnot cluttering
up the net (net.general included).
How do we go about teaching people to use Distribution more?
Dave Sherman
--
{cornell,decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver,watmath}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davediamant@cwruecmp.UUCP (John Diamant) (09/15/83)
I think the idea of censoring a large number of news categories is a terrible idea. One of the great things about Usenet is the fact that it is a public forum in which ANYONE can speak. I am in favor of having a couple of moderated newsgroups like net.announce, but the idea of making this a standard practice is repugnant to me. Not only is it a bad idea (in my opinion), but it would be a virtually impossible task to maintain a list of people on every machine who can post to a category. The lists would never agree with each other, and news would get lost. You can always use the n key if you don't like what is being posted, and believe me, I do that quite a bit; but it is still much better than the alternative. John Diamant Usenet: ...decvax!cwruecmp!diamant CSNet: Diamant@Case ARPA: Diamant.Case@Udel-Relay
mp@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) (09/16/83)
These suggestions are getting a little bizarre, aren't they? I've found the main cause of net abuse is that the users don't bother to read the netnews documentation before plunging in. I posted a pointer to the documentation, network map, list of active newsgroups, etc., as article 1 in newsgroup general (which never expires), and this seems to help the problem a little. [There will always be twits, though; the major netnews submittor at our site has yet to read even the netnews man page. Sigh.] Perhaps we need an extremely short condensation of "How To Read the Network News" and the netiquette article, for all the lazy impatient people around.
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/16/83)
Setting up "authorised users" will not work, folks, unless you prevent them from sending mail as well. The University of Maryland decided to implement this system, and a friend of mine got told he could no longer post news articles. So he mails them to me and I post them. I would rather not have to perform this function for all of usenet, but if that is what it takes... Interestingly enough I do not think that anyone found any of my friend's submissions "inappropriate" (though many people, including me do not agree with a lot of them), except, of course, those people who think that all non-technical newsroups are "inappropriate". If you set aside "authorised users" then be prepared to see a lot of people set up mailing depots where people can beat the system. So what have you done -- only made the mail routing more difficult for everyone. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (09/16/83)
the net. Net.real.unix.wizards, indeed. Why do all you systems programmers
feel so superior to us numerical people? If not for us, there would be no
reason for your jobs! :-) If I really wanted to ask a systems-related
question about UNIX, where would you suggest I post it? (For the record,
I haven't posted anything to unix-wizards that I can remember). Do you
really think I could get an answer from a net.unix-novice? Give us a break!
Seriously, though, I object to any form of censorship. If you really want
a "closed submission" group, set up a mailing list, because that is what you
are really talking about. One of the real beauties of netnews is *precisely*
that there *is no* prevention of anyone posting anything they damn well please.
I for one would much rather wade through lots of "garbage" (who gets to define
what that is, anyway?) than have anyone tell me what I can and can't post.
--
GREG
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | menlo70}
!hao!woodswoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (09/16/83)
losed submission" group, set up a mailing list, because that is what you
are really talking about. One of the real beauties of netnews is *precisely*
that there *is no* prevention of anyone posting anything they damn well please.
I for one would much rather wade through lots of "garbage" (who gets to define
what that is, anyway?) than have anyone tell me what I can and can't post.
--
GREG
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | menlo70}
!hao!woodsnrh@inmet.UUCP (09/18/83)
#R:root44:-415900:inmet:6700007:000:1301 inmet!nrh Sep 17 18:29:00 1983 I think a more usenet-like response to the problem of people submitting inappropriate articles would be a mechanism whereby one could unsubscribe to particular AUTHORS, just as one can now unsubscribe to particular GROUPS. Don't like erewhon!root? You never have to hear from him again (at least by that name). I can think of a couple of people I'd like to use this against, and doubtless a few misguided souls would use it against me. The main benefit would be that people could make the choice on a finer level than they do now. Think inmet!nrh is a jerk? I'm now easy to ignore. Does it get you upset when people send out articles ending in stupid signature lines? Eliminate them one by one. Of course there'd be problems -- you'd see other users' replies to articles by rabbit!jj (even if you've shut off jj himself) You'd hear people begging for vials of Lady Arwen's sweat, even if you never heard from Arwen herself. Here's something we could never do with print media. I suspect it's worth a try, even if it's never widely used. By the way, I'm quite aware that some people will accuse me of advocating censorship. I'm not. I'm advocating the right of individuals to choose in advance what they see. NOT anybody else's right to choose it for them. - Nat Howard
keith@rlgvax.UUCP (keith) (09/18/83)
18 Sep 83 You people who are talking about lists of "authorised submitters" give me a pain where a pill just won't reach it. >> The problem as I see it is how to keep the interesting newsgroups >> clutter free - I couldn't care less what goes into net.jokes, >> net.general etc. Glad you decided what's important for me. Oh, by the way, let's get rid of net.bugs.2bsd, too. After all, *you* have a VAX. >> An idea we came up with here was to have closed submission newsgroups. >> The point being that only certain people can submit to the groups, >> the list of people being decided by some 'editorial board' for that >> group. In a way it would work like a magazine except that once you had >> been accepted by the 'editorial board' you could submit what you >> wanted. Presumably if you started submitting junk the board you remove >> you from the list. ... >> (You don't have to read a newsgroup if you decide that you don't >> approve of the editorial board). No, fool, it's not "just like a magazine." USENET is a monopoly. The board would be a dictatorship. What do you want people who disagree with the board's policies to do, go out and start their own net? I don't even *believe* this crap. What you are advocating is a closed mail group. Okay, so have a closed mail group. Why bother to put it on the net? So I can marvel at the beauty and purity of your technical competence? To give me a taste of what I can aspire to? To inform me of your decisions on the future of computer science? The idea of a public forum (like USENET *used* to be) is to allow EVERYONE to speak up on any issue. That way you benefit from my ideas. Of course, I forgot, you know it all, right? Well, I just want you to know how grateful I am that you're willing to let me learn at your feet, so to speak. You want to create net.real.unix-wiz, go ahead. I'm all for it, being as tired as you are of the discussions on "rm ABC*" etc. etc. Figure out some reasonable way of making sure that *every* net person has read the netiquette document and make sure that net people realize that that group is moderated by someone who has the power to edit/request editing, point out the obvious unsuitability of the article, whatever. But don't you *dare* set up your own little kingdom where you have the absolute right to allow or disallow submissions. SNARL!!!! Keith ...![ allegra, seismo, mcnc, we13 ]!rlgvax!keith
aps@decvax.UUCP (Armando P. Stettner) (09/19/83)
(Hi Nat Howard) Just a little aside, there is a system called erehwon (not erewhon) on the network. It is the UEG's cute little 730 (one of the biggest in the world, I suspect). We also have a 750 called Limbo. (Limbo may take over the network and turn into a 780; (where's my mail? Well, it's in limbo ...)). I am erehwon!root and won't submit abusive stuff (like this message which should change and go to net.config or whatever). aps.