Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: A thought about USENET.
Message-ID: <843@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 23:15:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: van-bc.843
Posted: Tue Jun 16 23:15:51 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 08:53:55 EDT
References: <2577@psuvax1.UUCP> <1408@oliveb.UUCP> <841@van-bc.UUCP> <1443@ncc.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 66
Keywords: Archive sources free-speech

In article <1443@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>In article <841@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>< 
>< If this line could contain additional information such as the suggested file
>< name to store the posting then the expiration process could do a much more
>< intelligent job of saving the information. For example:
>< 
>< 	Archive:	sources/games/warp7.2 ( warp7 part 2 of 7 )
>< 	Archive:	sources/unix/smail2.3.4 ( smail 2.3 part 4 of 5 )
>< 
 
>I *like* the idea (this would also work well with the map distributions)
>however someone has to maintain a list of filenames. Otherwise, sooner

I think that moderated groups would have no problem with this. For the most
part the moderators will be able to provide unique names without any
problem.

Unmoderated groups MIGHT have a problem. Personally I don't think it would
be a big one. At least not for a while.

>or later (probably sooner), someone will inadvertently (or otherwise)
>use a duplicate name, zapping your old source in the process.

Actually it's not quite as bad as this. First the default save can be made
to be an append as opposed to creating a new file.

Or if the name was already in use a qualifier could be added. For
example:

	source/games/warp7.2.a

Or you could use a date oriented scheme:

	Archive: warp7.2 (warp 7, part 2 of 7)

could be archived in:

	archive/870616/warp7.2

In this case all files being archived are put into a directory that is
unique for a specific day (or week, or month). The files for a specific
posting will now be spread over several directories, but that's far less of
a hassle to deal with than what we have now.

>
>THEREFORE, I would like to suggest that (if this is implemented) rnews
>be made to check the active file for the moderation status of the news-
>group. If, and only if, it's moderated should the Archive: header be
>used.

This idea fits very nicely into the self moderation scheme. The original
message in this series dealt with the problem of self moderation by asking a
specific question "Is this a source posting?" and then adding the Archive:
header to signal expire to deal with the article in a special fashion.

By forcing people to provide additional information if they want to have 
their posting archived we put a slight road block in their way. Not much 
of one but most people are lazy and for the most part that and peer pressure
(do you really want several dozen nasty messages in you mailbox if you 
abuse this option) will keep people from providing the information unless it 
is required.


-- 
Stuart Lynne	ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532