greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/25/85)
I'm getting really tired of seeing discussions in net.sources!!
Sending a little reminder to a person who starts a discussion in
this group usually brings back some type of flame.
I suggest the creation of a net.sources.d. Sites that don't
wish to archieve discussions now have but one newsgroup to
save.
Additionally, the followup line in a net.sources article should
be forced to be either net.sources.bugs, or net.sources.d, unless
the posting in response is by the author themself.
Minor change to software, not a top level group, fills a need....
why not??
Send your votes to me, I'll summarize (Honestly, too!)
Ross
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson.
----
"I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid
never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that
deserve a series?"spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (08/01/85)
If we can't keep the bozos and jerks from posting their comments and
discussion to net.sources NOW, how can we force them to use
net.sources.d? And how can you force all of those sites to
upgrade their news to whatever version we fit the patch into?
Just curious....
I think our best possibility right now is to do whatever we can to
encourage the use of mod.sources instead of net.sources. I also
keep a few "recorded" messages in a directory in my account which
I mail out to people who use newsgroups the incorrect way. Using
"rn" it is simple to use the file for responding....just imagine if
each bozo got 40 or 50...or 200 letters telling them they didn't
know what they were doing? (BTW, it should be a polite letter --
most people react negatively when flamed, especially if they didn't
know better in the first place.)
Another option is to try and encourage everyone to read the net
documentation where this stuff is explained. Too many site
administrators just set their users loose on the system with
no pointers or suggestions. Too many users don't want to be
bothered with reading the instructions before using, either.
--
Gene "4 months and counting" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/03/85)
This is a simplistic solution but one approach to the problem of followups
and requests for reposts to net.sources is to cause rnews to junk any
article in net.sources shorter than 50 lines excluding headers.
Kind of the inverse of the rule Chuqui proposed for other groups...
--
My sister told me "I filled up my shoe tree so I knew it was time
to stop buying shoes. Then our parents gave me some shoes so I
had to buy another shoe tree. And then..."
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAmjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (08/04/85)
From: nsc!amdcad!phil@seismo (Phil Ngai) >This is a simplistic solution but one approach to the problem of followups >and requests for reposts to net.sources is to cause rnews to junk any >article in net.sources shorter than 50 lines excluding headers. I can see it now. Within hours of the installation of this code, some turkey would undoubtedly post a message consisting of "I need source for hack" repeated on 50 lines. We've already got enough garbage on the net; I think any policy enforcing a minimum length is going to lose. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg