Xref: utzoo news.admin:3276 news.software.b:1559 news.misc:1693
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b,news.misc
Subject: Re: Usenet is not a BBS
Message-ID: <1954@looking.UUCP>
Date: 18 Aug 88 23:07:40 GMT
References: <401@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <6627@conexch.UUCP> <1917@looking.UUCP> <8544@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <1988Aug18.155104.24260@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 23

Yes, people in the know will get around any software restriction.  That
doesn't make the restrictions bad, necessarily.

My idea that you can't followup an article unless it has a "Followup-to:"
line on it is not so much a restriction as a changing of default actions.

If you change defaults to encourage better behaviour, people will still
make annoying postings, but it will never get done due to ignorance or
mistake.  And if the net adopts a custom that you don't follow up an
article unless the poster explicitly requested it, you're not being very
polite if you sneak around it.

And the fact that a rule is implemented in software (and thus easy to
break) doesn't make it any less of a rule.  If restrictions in software
tell you there is something about your article which will not be wanted
on the net, you are still being told something, even if you know how
to get around the restriction.  But people seem to ignore it anyway.

And if you had to explicitly type a Followup-To: line, it would almost
completely eliminate the endless discussions that go on and on, still
crossposted to groups where the readers are more annoyed than interested.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473