sjb (12/02/82)
The idea of a mailing list goes against USENET itself (as you pointed out) I think the encryption scheme being used is helping very much to solve the problem and is working beautifully.
trb (12/02/82)
I think houx?!wapd's idea to put jokes in a *mailing-list* is ridiculous, because it is totally non-feasible over the uucp net (due to administrative and efficiency problems). How about this idea: Have newsgroups (free.all) that are automatically distributed everywhere. In order to READ these groups, a user has to go through a netnews programmed validation process reading the rules for these groups, that they are free access, no holds barred, and that the reader assumes the responsibility to let people say what they feel. If the reader doesn't want to make the deal, then no access. If a person somehow fudges their way thru the software to get to the free-access material without going thru the validation process, I would call that a willful desire to read the material, and therefore no risk of offending "innocent" people. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
jawa (12/02/82)
Could someone reveal the shell needed to decipher all of that encrypted filth?
rcj (12/03/82)
Bill Deitrich suggested a mailing list approach to jokes in a very
well-written article. This is NOT a flame or slam to Bill, but what
is wrong with crypting or net.jokes itself? His main concern seems to
be offending someone ("corporate entities" were mentioned) or drawing
fire to the net itself, a very worthy consideration. But why should
these people be bothered by their employees' having access to a net with
jokes on it and not bothered by a net containing long discussions of
marriage contracts, recipes, and the space suit controversy?
As with any other powerful device, netnews can be misused. I think that
the people on the net are very concerned about proper use of the net
(witness the fact that Bill bothered to care about unfavorable reactions
to jokes in the first place), but I do not think that this gives us
license to bastardize it (my opinion of going to underground mailing
lists for any items at all). I think that we have enough intelligence
to keep the net clean enough to keep all facets of it public.
My apologies if I misunderstood the motivations behind the original
mailing list suggestion;
I calls 'em as I sees 'em but I ain't always right,
Curtis Jackson (...!floyd!burl!rcj)wapd (12/03/82)
I don't think that my idea about a mailing-list for net.jokes was ridiculous ! I identified two problems : (1) it must be possible to prevent naive users from stumbling onto jokes that offend them, and (2) corporations are too protective of their images to allow any kind of formal, visible mechanism for distributing questionable jokes. My proposal of a mailing-list solves both problems : users have to explicitly request that they receive jokes, and corporations can say "we have no distribution of bad jokes; all that we have is private mail among our users and they can send anything they want". The proposal to have a "free." set of newsgroups seems to satisfy number 1 (protection of naive users) but doesn't solve number 2. Corporations are not pleased by the beauty or purity of a mechanism which passes everything impartially; it may be a neat idea but it still gives them the willies when it comes to corporate image. Also, I thought that "ug." was supposed to be exactly what "free." is proposed as. My understanding is that "ug." is squelched on all BTL machines. I realize that mailing-lists have drawbacks : there has to be an administrator, and the routing information changes from time to time. However, this seems to be better than today's situation (no jokes) and I don't foresee any better solution being implemented any time soon. Bill Dietrich houxj!wapd