Linda Littleton <LRL@PSUVM.bitnet> (02/20/90)
In article <NETNWS-L%90021417271052@NDSUVM1.BITNET>, Thomas Habernoll <HABERNOL@DB0TUI11.BITNET> says: >On Wed, 14 Feb 90 16:19:00 EST Linda Littleton said: >>We've been creating a message-id if it is missing. The message-id is >>created by using data on the 'from' and 'date' lines of the file. >This is dangerous. Don't do it. This is dangerous. If the gateway is >subscribed to a Listserv list in the right way (i.e. with Fullheader >option), the header is guaranteed to have a message-id. If there is >no message-id then something is dead wrong, and the article should better >be deleted, or forwarded to the maintainer, or anything else except >feeding it into Netnews. Ok, we're no longer manufacturing message-ids. Only a few articles are coming in without them - from advise-l, online-l, and everything from Comserve.
Bill Gruber <BIGCU@CUNYVM.bitnet> (02/22/90)
All this talk about adding LISTSERV lists to NETNEWS reminds me of an "interesting problem" we've had. While we don't subscribe to most of the listserv lists on NETNEWS ourselves (i.e. we get them from our PSU feed), we occasionally get a request to add a particular listserv list to our NETNEWS. Our policy has been to first contact the maintainer of the listserv list to ask permission to gateway the list to NETNEWS. Interestingly enough, WE HAVE BEEN TURNED DOWN. And, I'm certain there was no confusion about what we wanted to do and why - the list owner simply felt that he wasn't prepared to deal with a large volume of new articles that NETNEWS might generate. In another case, the owner felt that people interested enough to subscribe would possibly have something to contribute, but those just reading NETNEWS were regarded as people sending "junk mail". Since a list owner can disallow automatic signup, (and thus choose not to signup a NETNEWS machine if a request to do so is received), I wonder if we should be assuming that it's OK to gateway these things without asking permission first. But the fact the we were turned down twice leads me to believe that perhaps we indeed should be asking permission. But I'm not making any further judgements here - the question is perhaps a moot point. Bill Gruber City University of New York
Jim McIntosh <JIM@AUVM.bitnet> (02/22/90)
On Thu, 22 Feb 90 12:49:57 EST Bill Gruber said: >Since a list owner can disallow automatic signup, (and thus choose not to >signup a NETNEWS machine if a request to do so is received), I wonder if >we should be assuming that it's OK to gateway these things without asking >permission first. But the fact the we were turned down twice leads me to >believe that perhaps we indeed should be asking permission. But I'm not >making any further judgements here - the question is perhaps a moot point. When the list header says "Subscription= Open" it implies, in my opinion, that the list welcomes all subscribers. When the list header says "Subscription= By_Owner" then the list owner must explicitly add any new subscribers. In the groups I recently added there were two that had "Subscription= By_Owner" set. In both cases I wrote to the list owner and explained what I wanted to do, what NETNEWS was, etc. In both cases NETNEWS was subscribed to the list by the owner. I think this process was fair. As I explained to the owners, if NETNEWS becomes troublesome, the list owner has the ability to remove its subscription if they need to. I would expect them to if NETNEWS users couldn't behave themselves. Jim McIntosh (JIM@AUVM) The American University Washington DC 20016 USA
"Leonard H. Tower Jr." <tower@BUITA.BU.EDU> (02/23/90)
In article <90051.121756LRL@PSUVM.BITNET> NETNWS-L Netnews List <NETNWS-L@NDSUVM |Ok, we're no longer manufacturing message-ids. Only a few articles are |coming in without them - from advise-l, online-l, and everything from |Comserve. Could someone close to these lists and comserve, please ask them to add Message-Id's. Self-policing to meet standards is something we all should chip in and do. thanx -len