Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rpics!yerazuws From: yerazuws@rpics.RPI.EDU (Crah) Newsgroups: misc.wanted,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Wanted - UUCP for MS-DOS Message-ID: <573@rpics.RPI.EDU> Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 17:14:33 EST Article-I.D.: rpics.573 Posted: Mon Jan 5 17:14:33 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 23:16:44 EST References: <228@hqda-ai.UUCP> <904@mhuxi.UUCP> <1607@hoptoad.uucp> <1054@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: RPI CS Dept., Troy NY, USA Lines: 46 Summary: Moderation is wise, I think. Xref: mnetor misc.wanted:382 comp.mail.uucp:96 In article <1054@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP writes: > In article <1607@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >In article <904@mhuxi.UUCP>, crayinc@mhuxi.UUCP (Rick Tillbrook) writes: > >> ... stuff about a BBS with useful software > > > >Before everybody calls this number, be warned that it is not a public > >access system. You can get in and read the bulletins but the *ss*oles > >that run it will not let you download software from it without running > >a mini-TRW check on you. As if your receiving PD software from them > >could endanger them in any way. Give me a break. > > Before I instituted this policy I got all sorts of goodies, including > someone who posted some ATT source code, a way to beat the local phone > service, and an add from a hooker! I don't need that grief! > > People who run a check on users are NOT *ss*oles, they are NOT worried > about you taking their software. They DO want to eliminate the bulk of > the users who use phoney names, and post all sorts of illegal stuff. I > think you should (publicly) rethink your position. I can see both sides of the story on this one - having had a FIDO for a while, it can become nervewracking to wonder what someone just posted. On the other hand, there ought to be some way for this poor fellow to get his UUCP stuff without becoming a full-fledged user. BBS's are supposed to HELP communication, not hinder it. A friend (in Massachusetts, runs the WayStar FIDO (Rainbow catering)) does it this way - Anyone can post. But- until he PERSONALLY checks the complete text of the entry, no one can download it. Certified users can send mail that isn't intercepted by the sysop- and getting certified means name, address, signature, and ten bucks a year. By check. And he doesn't cash that check- he keeps it. You send him another check for whatever long-distance service you incur on FIDOmail. He suggests opening at $25 worth of credit. *That* check he cashes. This method (he feels) gives him an excellent handle on the situation. If your check bounces, you're an unreliable jerk and don't get an account. If your check clears, he has a way to point any lawsuits away from himself - namely, the account number and bank on that $10 check that he doesn't cash. But in any case, how can downloading a file put a BBS Sysop at legal risk- provided the file was rock-solid public domain in the first place? -Bill Yerazunis