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)