w8sdz@smoke.BRL.MIL (Keith Petersen) (02/01/90)
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin H. Ziegler, III) writes: >[Remember the old Wendy's commercial? Well, we now present: > Where's the binaries?] > Mr. Dhesi should appoint a new moderator so that the binaries can start > flowing again. Mr, Dhesi has already proven that he cannot be relied upon to handle this changeover in a timely manner. I suggest that if we wait for him there will never be any resolution. It's time to ask Gene Stafford and the Usenet backbone folks to appoint a temporary moderator until this matter can be resolved. Keith -- Keith Petersen Maintainer of SIMTEL20's CP/M, MSDOS, & MISC archives [IP address 26.2.0.74] Internet: w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil, w8sdz@brl.arpa BITNET: w8sdz@NDSUVM1 Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!wsmr-simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
rsmith@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Rusty Smith, MACC) (02/06/90)
In article <12073@smoke.BRL.MIL>, w8sdz@smoke.BRL.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes... > >Mr, Dhesi has already proven that he cannot be relied upon to handle >this changeover in a timely manner. I suggest that if we wait for him >there will never be any resolution. > >It's time to ask Gene Stafford and the Usenet backbone folks to >appoint a temporary moderator until this matter can be resolved. > >Keith >-- >Keith Petersen >Maintainer of SIMTEL20's CP/M, MSDOS, & MISC archives [IP address 26.2.0.74] I would have to agree to this suggestion. The SIMTEL20 activity is very high. It took repeated tries all weekend to get a connection and ftp the tax programs for 1989. I am sure there are many others who would benefit from a posting of a least 1 of these tax programs. I found AMTAX to be very easy to use. Rusty Smith Internet: rsmith@vms.macc.wisc.edu MACC Data Communications Bitnet: rsmith@wiscmacc (608) 263-6307 Univ. of Wisconsin @ Madison
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) (02/06/90)
May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who carry on discussions there. It should be able to work. Some postings would be far better than none, even if the noise level in the group rises somewhat. This would also take a great load off of simtel20.arpa, and other machines that carry archives. "Before Abraham was born, Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN I AM!" Jesus of Nazareth 1709 S. Bonnie Brae St., LA, CA 90006 Internet: kjh@usc.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
genemans@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jan K. Genemans) (02/06/90)
In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I >can think of why this wouldn't work. I can think of one big reason for not having an unmoderated group! It will inevitably fall to the same fate as unmoderated BBS's where computer viruses are quite prevalent. MOST people here know how to handle virues; however, there are a few that don't, and those that do can find these viruses a pain in the *ss. A second reason would be for the huge bandwidth and traffic that would ensue causing several of the smaller systems with their valuable disk space to be completely occupied, thus screwing the users out of the use of that system. I think that it should remain moderated for the reasons that I have expressed above. If no one wants the job, I would even volunteer for the position. (I have some experience being a maintainer of such file areas on two different LAN's.) Comments anyone? -- //// Jan Genemans | USENET: Jan.Genemans@mac.dartmouth.edu \\\\ \\\\ U.S.M.M.A. | UUCP: ...!dartvax!mac.dartmouth.edu!Jan.Genemans ////
linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) (02/07/90)
In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I >can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to >post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who >carry on discussions there. It should be able to work. Some postings >would be far better than none, even if the noise level in the group >rises somewhat. This would also take a great load off of simtel20.arpa, >and other machines that carry archives. > I second the motion! Sam Lin Internet: linco@eng.umd.edu
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (02/07/90)
> > May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I > can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to > post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who > carry on discussions there. It should be able to work. Some postings > would be far better than none, even if the noise level in the group > rises somewhat. This would also take a great load off of simtel20.arpa, > and other machines that carry archives. Ideas like this are always worth consideration and discussion. Nevertheless, (in my my opinion) quality control and good comments by a moderator are such valuable assets to the net, that we should not forsake moderation. Be that as may, I think that it would be advisable to separate two problems. 1) The short-run (although not short-lived) problem of the complete stall of traffic we have experienced. 2) Whether moderating is preferable in the long-run per se (I think it is). As to leveling the load off sites such as Simtel20 and ours, I do not think that an unmoderated group would change things in this respect. The number of different files that are downloaded by ftp is of a different order of magnitude than would be practical in the binaries. P.S. No I am not submitting nor volunteering (but thanks for the confidence of those who have emailed to this effect). ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (02/07/90)
prescriptum: I didn't know that Rahul appointed bill, nor that Keith asked Gene to intervene. Obviously, neither did Peter. (Whee! Namedropping! [ouch! my toe!]) Not that I care much about how this is all done, if I did I'd follow the misc.groups newsgroup or whatever it's called. But why "...[do] things quietly until everything was in place"? It's just kept the confusion and frustration higher for us commoners out here peecee purgatory. Now, for the short of memory: c.b.i.p. was originally unmoderated. Its volume was such that the net.gods threatened to shut it down. Or more accurately, many sites threatened to stop paying the phone bills for distributing it. The newsgroup became moderated as a means to make it acceptable to those who were paying to spread it around to all the rest of us. IMHO one delightful side effect of moderation was that c.b.i.p.'s quality went way, waaay, WAY up. Partly because the unmoderated group's excessive volume frequently didn't include any programs. Literally days and weeks could go by with no source, no binaries, just chatter, and much of that was pretty aimless. Just like c.s.i.p. But also Rahul, when he was at his old job and had the time, was a very thorough moderator. He generated tools for managing archives, some of which I use for completely unrelated purposes. And he tested the stuff before he posted it, so you could be pretty sure it worked on at least a couple of systems. I wish c.b.i.p. would distribute source as well as binaries, and I see no particular need to test source. Source code is for people who intend to do their own hacking. But check the size of the moderated comp.virus newsgroup; I felt a *lot* better knowing that a binary had been checked at least a little bit, and wasn't going to smoke my HD for at least a couple of minutes. Whoever the new moderator is, you have my support, bill :-) I just hope things get rolling soon now. bob,mon.
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (02/07/90)
In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I >can think of why this wouldn't work. Think a bit more.....I see several problems, including: 1) Misuse of the group. Crippleware/Demoware etc. 2) Followups/Discussion articles, "Could somebody please send me ......." type of articles. A big problem for those who archive all the postings in c.b.i.p.c. 3) Possible virus transmissions. It would be very easy for a virus author to distribute a new virus all over the world if the group was not moderated. Don't forget - it was unmoderated once. It didn't work out. No, we really need a moderator - R. Dhesi did a good job in the past, but now we need somebody with a bit more time. I would even volunteer myself, but we have a number of candidates already. Hoping that we get c.b.i.p.c running again soon..... -- Fridrik Skulason - University of Iceland, Computing Services. frisk@rhi.hi.is Technical Editor, Virus Bulletin.
a563@mindlink.UUCP (Dave Kirsch) (02/07/90)
> jmerrill writes: > > Msg-ID: <4225@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> > Posted: 7 Feb 90 21:26:55 GMT > > Org. : Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 > Person: Jason Merrill > > In article <4880a153.144c9@byzantine.UUCP> fraserr@byzantine.UUCP (Ross > Fraser) writes: > >Also, without a moderator, there would be a greater risk of spreading > viruses > >across the network. Let's wait and see if the Powers That Be can resolve > this > >thing be for creating a nightmare. > > About the same risk as getting a virus from SIMTEL; I really doubt Keith has > the time to check everything that gets uploaded. No way. A news group such as c.b.i.p can spread virus like wildfire. I'm in Vancouver and have no access to FTP and my mail to SIMTEL goes into the phatom zone (no bounce, nothing, just vapourizes). So I rely on c.b.i.p. for alot of the good new PD/Shareware that's out. And I've found the R. Deshi did a great job at checking out the stuff. You see, SIMTEL is only accessable by so many people, and the files aren't hand delivered to you like c.b.i.p. You have to go FTP them, where with c.b.i.p, you just log on and read the new messages, and they are there ready to use (after a quick uudecode). A virus on a program on SIMTEL would take, I'd say, at least a month to spread very far. On c.b.i.p, it would take 2 or 3 DAYS. I'm totally against an UN-moderated group. I just shudder at that thought. -- _______________________________________________________________________ ______ Dave Kirsch UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a563 Voice: (604) 525-3329 a563@mindlink.UUCP "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that." Vancouver, British Columbia
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL) (02/07/90)
In article <1990Feb6.191414.13982@eng.umd.edu>, linco@eng.umd.edu (Sam Lin) writes: > In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: > >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I > >can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to > >post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who > >carry on discussions there. It should be able to work. Some postings > >would be far better than none, even if the noise level in the group > >rises somewhat. This would also take a great load off of simtel20.arpa, > >and other machines that carry archives. > > > I second the motion! I move this motion be tabled indefinitely. It has been tried before. It led to chaos and an overloaded network to the point of the group being considered for abandonment by the Usenet gods. (And that was before viruses were around). Forrest Gehrke feg@clyde.ATT.COM
fraserr@byzantine.UUCP (Ross Fraser) (02/07/90)
In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: >May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I >can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to >post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who >carry on discussions there. Wrong! Heckling only leads to MORE discussion, not less. Look at alt.sex as an example. Flame wars almost ruined it. Also, without a moderator, there would be a greater risk of spreading viruses across the network. Let's wait and see if the Powers That Be can resolve this thing be for creating a nightmare. -- ======================================================================= -- Ross Fraser (fraserr@gtephx) UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!fraserr AGCS (formerly GTE), Phoenix ... 602 (582-7258)
dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (02/08/90)
In article <1502@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: > 3) Possible virus transmissions. It would be very easy for a virus > author to distribute a new virus all over the world if the group > was not moderated. Clearly, one service we can expect (demand?) from a moderator is to scan submitted binaries for KNOWN viruses, but I can't see how, in a reasonable amount of time, a moderator could be sure that a submitted binary didn't contain a NEW virus. -David West dhw@iti.org
jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) (02/08/90)
In article <4880a153.144c9@byzantine.UUCP> fraserr@byzantine.UUCP (Ross Fraser) writes: >Also, without a moderator, there would be a greater risk of spreading viruses >across the network. Let's wait and see if the Powers That Be can resolve this >thing be for creating a nightmare. About the same risk as getting a virus from SIMTEL; I really doubt Keith has the time to check everything that gets uploaded. -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) (02/09/90)
I retract my suggestion that we un-moderate c.b.i.p. I failed to consider the virus problem. In addition, I was unaware of the history. I hope that a suitable moderator can be found soon, and can assume his post asap. "Before Abraham was born, Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN I AM!" Jesus of Nazareth 1709 S. Bonnie Brae St., LA, CA 90006 Internet: kjh@usc.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) (02/09/90)
In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: | May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I | can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to | post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who | carry on discussions there. The day c.b.i.p becomes un-moderated is the day I hit the "u" key. It's just too damn easy to hit the "F" key when somone has pissed you off. Let the flames stay in alt.flame where they belong, and keep the traffic in c.b.i.p down. It's also too easy for someone to post a binary that's untraceable. Un-moderating c.b.i.p is an open invitation to a virus peddler. -- Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu) Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (02/09/90)
In article <4913@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes: >Clearly, one service we can expect (demand?) from a moderator is to scan >submitted binaries for KNOWN viruses, but I can't see how, in a >reasonable amount of time, a moderator could be sure that a submitted >binary didn't contain a NEW virus. Well, most "new" viruses are not really so new - rather only modifications to existing viruses (see note #1) If the moderator uses several different virus scanners, he can probably catch all viruses based on those previously known. One thing a moderator can at least stop, but would be more of a problem if the group was not moderated, is something like the Virus-90 case. There the author uploaded his virus to a number of Bulletin Board Systems, with documentation that said something like: "This program contains a virus. You are permitted to study it, but not to modify it. If you wish to receive the source, please send $25 to......." If an unmoderated c.b.i.p. group had been running at the time, he might even have managed to distribute the virus there - I guess that would have resulted in instant removal of c.b.i.p at some sites..... note #1: Recently I received a Package of 30 Bulgarian PC viruses. Only 4 of them were known before, but since most of the other 26 viruses were related to currently known viruses, only 2 viruses could not be detected by existing anti-virus tools. -- Fridrik Skulason - University of Iceland, Computing Services. frisk@rhi.hi.is Technical Editor, Virus Bulletin.
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/10/90)
In article <4267@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes: > In article <22685@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu > (Kenneth J. Hendrickson N8DGN) writes: > | May I suggest that we un-moderate c.b.i.p? There is no reason that I > | can think of why this wouldn't work. We can post instructions on how to > | post programs, including shell scripts even. We can heckle people who > | carry on discussions there. > > The day c.b.i.p becomes un-moderated is the day I hit the "u" key. It's > just too damn easy to hit the "F" key when somone has pissed you off. Let > the flames stay in alt.flame where they belong, and keep the traffic in > c.b.i.p down. > > It's also too easy for someone to post a binary that's untraceable. > Un-moderating c.b.i.p is an open invitation to a virus peddler. While keeping "discussions" out of c.b.i.p, and keeping virus problems at a minimum are important reasons to moderate the group, the main reason for moderation is to keep the volume at a reasonable level. The moderator should go through the postings and only post one copy of things that he receives. Without moderation we would be seeing 17 different copies of nethack posted. Not that I have anything against nethack, I just need one copy, not several. Think about how many requests you have seen in c.b.i.p.d for reposts of parts that are missing. Now suppose that several people actually repost the "missing" part every time one of these requests appear. In no time at all the group would be unusable. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444