From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Apr 21 06:58:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA15090 for isp-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from works.co.uk (root@calvary.works.co.uk [194.217.193.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA15083 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pavanne by works.co.uk (NX5.67e/NX3.0M) id AA00543; Mon, 21 Apr 97 14:58:23 +0100 Message-Id: <9704211358.AA00543@works.co.uk> Received: by pavanne.works.co.uk (NX5.67e/NX3.0X) id AA01368; Mon, 21 Apr 97 14:58:21 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2) In-Reply-To: X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 1.3) Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2) From: Mark Konkol Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 14:58:19 +0100 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Binaries in Usenet (was: News...) References: Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael Dillon wrote: > Email is already protected legally. > ... > Stuff in a Squid proxy cache is the same as stuff that is in transit and > may be buffered in any number of places. > ... > But USENET is very different, and IMHO it makes the ISP very vulnerable. > ... Hmm, ok, if there is this legal distinction, clearly the solution is to set up a global news cacheing system. But I think there's a case to be made for saying that that's exactly what USENET is already... Consider - web caches and news systems are similar in that: the info is stored on your system, but you have no detailed knowledge of what the info is, and unless you go out of your way to configure restrictions, filters and such-like, you have no real control of what the info is. Perhaps I'm missing some crucial difference? --- Mark Konkol Complete Works Ltd. 399 Strand London WC2R 0LT Tel: +44(0)171 836 0808 Fax: +44(0)171 836 0440 http://www.works.co.uk/