Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:33:50 -0400 From: Sysadmin <danlaw@rust.net> To: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: News... Message-ID: <3356EB9E.75AF@rust.net> References: <Pine.BSI.3.93.970417181224.26558G-100000@sidhe.memra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Dillon wrote: [snip] > > > > I agree. I think the best method for implementing a saner usenet is to > > dump the alt. hierarchy and flesh out the others, and make comprehensible > > rulesets for postings that servers can enforce (i.e. no more than X from > > a person in a day, no more than X in a single posting -- would help with > > spammers too) > > alt.* has a lot of useful stuff in it. For instance alt.conspiracy makes > great entertainment. But I think you are right that the trend is to more > formal management of Internet services and maybe we should be moving > towards a formal structure for managing USENET. Most of this is already > in place, it just isn't formalized in some sort of international > organization. However, this would not happen quickly. I think it would > take at least two years of public discussions to hash out the details. There is an already agreed-upon mechanism for doing what you propose: create your own heirarchies and the servers and censo^H^H^H^H^H control mechanisms for them; promote them in the appropriate *.announce groups on the existing Usenet newsgroups, and feed them and accept feeds from those interested. Voila! You have created your own version of Usenet, just like you want it! Frankly, I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "the trend is to more formal management of Internet services". This is bass-ackwards to the entire concept of Usenet's semiorganized chaos that has served it throughout its entire existance. And who is this "we" who will "manage" Usenet? Elected by the same mechanism as the voting for the creation of new newsgroups? An international treaty organization where most representatives come from nations with so-called "free speech" where "free speech" is defined as "Responsible free speech" and "irresponsible" is defined as "anything government officials don't like"? Sorry, I'll pass. I don't have any problem with "cancelmoose" type enforcment of *limited* content-neutral rules generally accepted by Usenet's user-owners. But I do with anyone who thinks they have the right to prevent or inhibit its use by others, or to modify it simply because that would make it easier to carry. But I'm starting to get the impression that this thread's real intent is to eliminate newsgroups which are unwanted and at the same time not have to provide them to those getting newsfeeds, and prevent others from carrying them as well, lest the customers vote with their feet and go to the other providers. Fsck that idea. You don't want the group, don't carry it, but if others do, don't grouse about their choice. As for the alt newsgroups - *specifically* intended not to be controlled by any such cabalistic rules - the accepted convention is not to send them to anyone not requesting them. Or presumably ask for any you do not want the content of!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3356EB9E.75AF>