Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list.
Message-ID: <2747@phri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jun-87 08:11:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: phri.2747
Posted: Wed Jun 17 08:11:15 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 15:36:05 EDT
References: <1787@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 23
Keywords: unmoderated sources
Summary: Cancling unwanted messges
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1045 comp.sources.d:865

In <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> barnett@ge-crd.arpa  (Bruce G Barnett) writes:
> Whenever non-sources gets posted to the new unmoderated comp.sources.misc -
> someone Cancels the article?  If this is done enough times, eventually
> people will get the message.

	I seem to remember something like this going on a while ago --
somebody took it upon themselves to send out cancel messages for articles
that s/he thought were innapropriate (don't remember the details; was it
net.sources?)  Once people figured out what was going on, the uproar was
loud and angry.  Preventing postings is one thing, inflicting random
carnage to already posted stuff (remember the article trasher?) is another
thing altogether.

	Besides, it's not likely that the poster of a message which later
gets cancled will even realize it.  I rarely go back and look at stuff I've
posted (after reading it the first time to make sure it came out as I
anticipated).  If somebody cancled this article for example, it would take
a few days for the cmsg to get back here and I'd probably never know it
happened at all.  Not much educational value in that.
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016