Xref: utzoo news.admin:3265 news.software.b:1556 news.misc:1691
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b,news.misc
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Usenet is not a BBS
Message-ID: <1988Aug18.155104.24260@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <401@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <6627@conexch.UUCP> <1917@looking.UUCP> <8544@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 15:51:04 GMT

In article <8544@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes:
>>1) reply/followups are always mailed if the original article did not have
>>a "Followup-to:" header...
>
>If this were to happen, I would immediately write a shell script that
>would take a saved message and reformat it so that it looks like an
>original article.  And I have this very strange feeling that many
>others would do the same.

This is exactly why it is pointless to try to legislate morality in ways
that inconvenience people who know what they're doing and don't want any
backtalk from the software:  ways around the problem are quickly found and
just as quickly automated.  The result is extra complexity and hassle in
the software to no useful purpose.  If people want to improve the net by
putting restrictions in the software, the restrictions *have* to be very
carefully chosen and implemented so that they do not inconvenience the
experienced users.  Restrictions to keep novices under better control
while not inconveniencing the experts are tricky, but not impossible.
Restrictions deliberately aimed at inconveniencing the experts are silly
and pointless -- they won't work.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu