dan@lclark.UUCP (Dan Revel) (01/04/91)
In article <680.2783DF40@busker.fidonet.org> Tim.Maroney@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tim Maroney) writes: >From: tim@hoptoad.uucp /* text of message deleted */ >Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > >"Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid > of government." -- James Madison > > + Organization: Electronics for Imaging, San Bruno CA > >-- >Tim Maroney - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 > UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Tim.Maroney >INTERNET: Tim.Maroney@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG How come all of a sudden all the messages in this newsgroup are FIDONET encapsulated? I've seen lots of Tim's posting before and they never looked like this! Sorry if this isn't the right newsgroup for this question, but I saw it here first... Dan -- dan@lclark.bitnet SM 0 A9F4 tektronix!reed!lclark!dan G 0
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/06/91)
In article <1039@lclark.UUCP> dan@lclark.UUCP (Dan Revel) writes: >How come all of a sudden all the messages in this newsgroup are FIDONET >encapsulated? I've seen lots of Tim's posting before and they never looked >like this! Sorry if this isn't the right newsgroup for this question, but >I saw it here first... Some Fidonet bozo in Columbus is stripping the message ids from messages, assigning new local message ids, and then dumping them back onto the network -- hence the several dozen duplicate messages yesterday. I have to say that I have yet to see Fido gateways to USENET doing anything but hurting the quality of newsgroups, and I wonder if there should be a policy against such gateways. If you think there's a lot of pointless blather on USENET, try a Fido echo sometime. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Someone to flame us, someone to follow, Someone to shame us, some brave Apollo! Someone to rule us. Someone like you. We want you, Big Brother." -- David Bowie, "Big Brother"
molenda@s1.msi.umn.edu (Jason Molenda) (01/06/91)
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >I have to say that I have yet to see Fido gateways to USENET doing >anything but hurting the quality of newsgroups, and I wonder if there >should be a policy against such gateways. If you think there's a lot >of pointless blather on USENET, try a Fido echo sometime. new usenet administrators do new and weird things to the net all the time. It usually isn't malicious and once they know of the problem the problem ceases. But we don't go around saying that new usenet administrators shouldn't be allowed to join usenet. People make mistakes. No point in trying to lynch them or restrict the software they're using just because of an occasional mistake from a new sysadmin. -jason -- Jason Molenda, Tech Support, Iris & News Admin, Minnesota Supercomputer Inst molenda@s1.msi.umn.edu || molenda%msi.umn.edu@umnacvx.bitnet "And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (01/07/91)
Dan Revel writes in a message to All
DR> How come all of a sudden all the messages in this newsgroup are
DR> FIDONET encapsulated? I've seen lots of Tim's posting before
DR> and they never looked like this! Sorry if this isn't the right
DR> newsgroup for this question, but I saw it here first...
DR> Dan
More to the point, how come so many replies to messages ended up addressed to
"ALL" (at least that is how *I* am receiving them...)?
Lawson
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.orgrussotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (01/07/91)
In article <14583@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <1039@lclark.UUCP> dan@lclark.UUCP (Dan Revel) writes: >>How come all of a sudden all the messages in this newsgroup are FIDONET >>encapsulated? I've seen lots of Tim's posting before and they never looked >>like this! Sorry if this isn't the right newsgroup for this question, but >>I saw it here first... > >Some Fidonet bozo in Columbus is stripping the message ids from messages, >assigning new local message ids, and then dumping them back onto the >network -- hence the several dozen duplicate messages yesterday. > >I have to say that I have yet to see Fido gateways to USENET doing >anything but hurting the quality of newsgroups, and I wonder if there >should be a policy against such gateways. If you think there's a lot >of pointless blather on USENET, try a Fido echo sometime. Are you saying that there have never been similiar technical problems with USENet sites using NNTP or UUCP instead of Fido? Or are you commenting on something completely unrelated and implying that this techincal problem is an example of the depravity of FIDO? -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.