Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Announcement of unmoderated sources mailing list. Message-ID: <822@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jun-87 16:51:34 EDT Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.822 Posted: Tue Jun 23 16:51:34 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 04:44:20 EDT References: <965@vortex.UUCP> <7946@utzoo.UUCP> <7947@utzoo.UUCP> <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 18 Keywords: unmoderated sources Xref: mnetor news.groups:1071 comp.sources.d:900 In article <1789@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>, barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) writes: > Here is a radical (?) idea. 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 think this is a very bad idea. Newgroup/rmgroup wars are bad enough, but an intelligent and careful news admin can usually avoid getting burnt too badly. If we get post/cancel wars going there won't be much left of usenet! The only case I can see where it is acceptable for someone other than the poster to cancel an article is that I would find it reasonable for a moderated group moderator to cancel an article with a faked Approved: header in that group (cf. "richard"). der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)