Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gatech.CSNET
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: c*nc*l <148@psueea.UUCP> and many others
Message-ID: <1935@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 10:41:52 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.1935
Posted: Tue Nov 12 10:41:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 03:59:38 EST
References:   <134@desint.UUCP> <5667@amdcad.UUCP> <386@wuphys.UUCP> <721@ecsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Distribution: net
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
Lines: 65

Let us all accept as a "given" that there are a lot of bozos out there
who post all sorts of inappropriate nonsense to net.sources.  What, then,
do we do about it?  

Posting faked cancellation messages doesn't help. The articles have
already appeared and been circulated, adding to the load, and have
already been read and/or archived at many sites.  Since the
cancellation is faked and from a different site, its propagation
pattern will be different -- leading to the cancellation arriving
before the offending article in some places, and leading to the
cancellation arriving weeks after the article in others.  Last of all,
the cancellation messages add to the overall traffic and load on the
network -- N.G.

The first thing that could be done is to encourage your users to
post to mod.sources.  Use it yourself, in fact, rather than 
posting to net.sources.  I don't bother to even read net.sources
anymore because of the junk and the volume, and I'm sure I'm
not the only one.  I also don't buy people's arguments about
net.sources is for "less mature" software which shouldn't be 
posted to mod.sources.  Hell, I'm *not interested* in less
mature software which someone just posted without documentation,
won't unshar, and has more bugs than I'd care to think about.

The second suggestion I have is to prepare a letter ahead of time
that reads something like:

   This reply is about your recent posting to the net.sources
   newsgroup.  I believe that your posting was inappropriate for the
   stated purpose of the newsgroup: publishing source code and
   documentation.  Requests for copies of source code should be posted
   in net.wanted.sources.  Bug fixes and enhancements to already-posted
   code should be submitted to net.sources.bugs.  Requests for
   clarification of posted items should be directed *by mail* to the
   author(s) of the software in question.

   If you have not already done so, read the items in the newsgroup
   net.announce.newusers.  If you have read those articles, please read
   them again.  It is very clearly stated in a number of places that
   net.sources is *not* for discussion or requests.  You are being rude
   by not observing established net etiquette for net.sources.  You
   also should consider cancelling your article.

Then, every time you read "net.sources" and stumble across a posting
that you feel is not appropriate to the group, simply "reply"
and include the form letter.  "cc" a copy to "root" at the site
where the poster is.  Imagine someone getting 50 copies of such mail.
Imagine what the sys admin will do upon receiving 50 copies of
such mail.  Or 100 copies. Or 200.  

It won't cure the problem entirely, but I bet if enough of you want to
do it, it will sure cut down on the number of repeat offenders.

Just remember to be polite.  Assume that the person on the other
end is simply ignorant and not a jerk.  Being rude will likely
cause the person to respond in kind, and you will accomplish
nothing worthwhile.  In fact, the person may post again
simply to show that s/he won't be intimidated.

This method works in other groups, too.
-- 
Gene "wedding done, thesis to go" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET
uucp:	...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf