Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucla-cime.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cime!kyle From: kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) Newsgroups: net.news,net.flame Subject: Re: cleaning up the net -- software revisited Message-ID: <142@ucla-cime.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 03:57:18 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cim.142 Posted: Fri Aug 2 03:57:18 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 00:42:47 EDT References: <3023@nsc.UUCP> Reply-To: kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) Distribution: net Organization: Crump Institute, UCLA Lines: 67 Xref: linus net.news:2991 net.flame:10595 In article <3023@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Followup-fan-in: A better (and probably easier to implement) form of > followup-fan-in has been suggested. Rather than mung out the header of > followups, mung out the header of all articles with a non-null > 'followup-to' so that it will followup to the first newsgroup on the > newsgroup list. This is a good idea. >Etiquette enforcement: Jerry@oliveb has been nice enough to implement > the enforcement for net.flame. I suggest we extend it to the following > groups as well: Etiquette enforcement for "net.flame"???! I thought that the normal rules on the net were suspended for that group. Am I mistaken? By the way I thought your site no longer carried "net.flame" anyway. > net.misc > net.net-people > net.followup > net.general for these groups the enforcement is probably fine. > There are a lot of other enforcements I'd like to make, but I want to > study the implications further before I make specific suggestions -- > they aren't always clear cut. Thanks to Jerry's work, this is also > rather trivial to implement. If we decide later to do a more extensive > enforcement, it should be broken out into a separate function and file > for ease of maintenance (see my article on munc_header()). > >rogue users and the hit list: This proposal is essentially unchanged, and > seems to be pretty well supported. Unfortunately, since it is a fair > amount of code I don't know when I'll get it implemented (the other two > are serious weekend hacks) and I'm considering a brute force method > temporarily. > >I'm still interested in comments I'm glad that you are! Why are any of the above measures necessary? The problems that brought about most of these ideas seem to have abated themselves. I have precious few moments of CPU time for news as it is, adding more overhead to the software is going to increase per article processing time and generally make the news softeare more of a mess than it already is. I for one vote no. Now whats all this about the enforcements "YOU" would like to make to the net? Do not the rest of us have a voice or an option? I really haven't detected a distinct consensus on the net pushing us in the directions you advocate. To the best of my knowledge you don't even carry "net.flame" anymore yet you still want to legislate the content of it. So what do you other SA's think? Should we implement "Hit lists" and such? Should we resort to what is essentially "book banning"? Well thats How I see it. Kyle... -- Kyle Henriksen US Snail: UCLA - Crump Institute 6417 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 OLDARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.arpa NEWARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: {ucla-cs,cepu}!ucla-cime!kyle