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