HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Non-compliant articles, week ending 23 August 92
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 11:44:22 GMT

         Invalid Headers, week ending 23 August 92

    The following is a list of articles which were dropped by the news 
    software here for a non-compliant header.  If a message ID from your 
    site is on this list then your news software may be out of compliance 
    with the RFCs on netnews articles and should be fixed.

Header contains non-header line:
	<71413@apple.Apple.COM> `Summary:'
	<3740@cvbnetPrime.COM> `References:'
	<4442@datum.nyo.dec.com> `Keywords:'
	<1199@ceylon.gte.com>
		`References:<1992Aug13.002440.15114@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1...'
	<9281@travis.csd.harris.com> `References:'
	<9208191304.AA04388@lynchpin.mtkgc.com> `To:	FRZMTDB'
	<5643@transfer.stratus.com> `Keywords:'
	<5787@transfer.stratus.com> `Keywords:'
	<26821@life.ai.mit.edu> `Keywords:'
	<1992Aug17.203221.652@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
		`Keywords:Material,Energy Balances'
	<1992Aug17.205204.3104@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> `Keywords:Paper, Life Cycle'
	<1992Aug20.185557.14083@reed.edu> `Followup-To:sci.physics'
	<1992Aug17.160645.17581@cs.ucla.edu> `Keywords:'
	<86310@netnews.upenn.edu> `Followup-To:FORUM List'
	<1992Aug17.133232.13220@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
		`References:<36931@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>'
	<133744@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> `Distribution:world'

Unapproved article in moderated group:
	<1992Aug22.021137.10260@odin.corp.sgi.com>
		`alt.sources.d,alt.sex.pictures.d,alt.binaries.pictures.d,...'
	<1992Aug23.005147.7793@odin.corp.sgi.com>
		`alt.binaries.pictures.utilities,alt.sources,alt.sources.d...'

Newsgroup list contains white space:
	<ads3.3@PO.CWRU.Edu> `alt.irc.recovery, alt.irc'

No @ in Message ID:
	<..0000.1992.0820.0129.0129> 
	<..0000.1992.0820.0422.0422> 
	<..0000.1992.0820.0521.0521> 
	<..0000.1992.0820.0719.0719> 
	<..0000.1992.0820.08000800> 
	<..0000.1992.0820.08010801> 
	<1970Jan0100:00:01> 
	<1970Jan0100:00:02> 
	<1970Jan0100:00:03> 
	<1991Dec2509:00:00> 
	<1992jun2614:59:50> 

Message ID not bracketed with <>:
	992Aug18.233506.3038@pony.Ingres.COM 

No Subject or empty Subject:
	<1992Aug18.223327.18546@mont.cs.missouri.edu> 

No From: header:
	<1992Aug19.134910.5626@fns-nc1.fns.com> 

Date in future (when received):
	<9208171311.AA22398@gorm.ruc.dk> `Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:17:39 -0500'
Xref: sparky news.admin:7007 comp.org.eff.talk:5356 misc.legal.computing:1920
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:49:01 GMT
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <uoaDPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:

>Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
>submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..

The problem, of course, is that you can say anything you want,
but that doesn't mean it will have any meaning to anyone else,
and at best it's a contract of attachment.

All the "warnings" and "you are putting this in the public domain"
statements in the world don't change the law, and don't change
the rights of the poster at all.

In any case, it's not necessary to put anything into the public
domain, and there's no reason to even try to strip a poster of
his or her copyrights.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Usenet Feeds Available By Fax!
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:52:40 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Aug10.180020.8478@geovision.gvc.com> news@geovision.gvc.com (News Administrator) writes:
:In <4993@tuegate.tue.nl> gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) writes:
:
:>In article <hotfax@plts.uucp> tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
:>>Tom Limoncelli       Makers of NewsFax, the ONLY Usenet-by-fax service!
:
:>You thought you were joking?  I've had a personal usenet->fax gateway
:>going for some time.  It's trivial to hack up.
:
:Yes, but do you have a 'post by fax' system yet?
:

I'm working on it!  The PD OCR stuff isn't all that hot, but it
looks like it'll fly if you type neatly.  This is *low* priority
hacking for me though, and I didn't really mean to mention it.
I'll post something someday if it ever works...

G
From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:49:39 CDT
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <249@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.201152.163@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>>See Title 17, section 111, in particular (c) Secondary Transmissions by
>>Cable Systems, and (d) Compulsory License for Secondary Transmissions by
>>Cable Systems.
> 
> I believe the original argument was that cable was a redistribution
> beyond the "normal" broadcast range of WTBS (i.e. I can't recieve it
> in california w/ a normal (or even enhanced!) antenna).  I *must* have
> cable to get it.  The fact that there is some statute that permits this
> is really beside the point.

I believe the original argument was that any redistribution beyond the
"normal" distribution was a violation of copyright, and that the copyright
owner could prevent it (e.g. no redistribution on pay-to-read systems, or
USENET on cable-TV, there's an idea).

I pointed out that broadcast stations can't prevent cable companies from
taking their broadcasts and retransmitting them across the country. Copyright
owners don't have complete exclusive control over their work.  There are a
variety of limitations of the exclusive rights of copyright owners ("fair use"
being the best known).  See a lawyer if you really care about it (or at least
read the law).

> The original point was that by posting to USENET you are authorizing
> distribution *to the extent of the normal distribution of USENET*.
> (Similar to WTBS broadcast range).  Redistribution of an article
> *beyond* the bounds of USENET would be restricted by copyright.  In
> the particular case of WTBS, there is in existance an statute that
> apparently overrides their copyright.  (Actually (without having looked
> up that law) I presume that part of the law involves payment of royalties
> back to WTBS, but that is beside the point...)  In the case of USENET
> there is no current legislation that would override the implicit copyright
> limits mandated by the act of posting an article.  Therefore, copyright
> protection exists preventing someone from using the article in another
> medium, claiming it as their own work, etc, etc, etc.

In the case of WTBS, the "normal" broadcast range is defined and regulated
by the Federal Communications Commission which sets out a specific geographic
area in which WTBS can prevent intereference with their signal.  I know of
no such regulation of USENET.

What is the "normal distribution of USENET"?  The best known definition I
know of is "anything that gets news.announce.important," which seems pretty
broad to me.  As long as they include n.a.i (a pretty low bandwidth group)
would include for-pay systems, cd-rom, printed newspapers, or whataver.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: Computer graphics and child pornography
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:48:04 GMT

Neither of the two followups addressed the original question:

Is a completely artificial (but possible very realistic in appearance)
image of what appears to be a child (or minor) involved in sexual
activity illegal?

Since the basis for child pornography laws is to protect the victim,
and since there is no victim, and since technically there is no way
to determine the age of the subject, it would appear by these arguments
that the image would be legal.  But since the law is not always clear
or logical, the original author probably had some doubts about this
reasoning.

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       jim@tcp.com
      jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu	| This space intentionally left blank
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:47:19 GMT

 	Just in case anyone forgot, you should remember what kind
of a "society" we live in.   The first sentence in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms says  
	"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
	 the *supremacy of God* and the rule of law:"

How do you like them apples?

And to refresh your memories...

"33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare i an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 ..."

and section 2 says...

"2. Everyone has the following freedoms:

 (a)freedom of conscience and religion;
*(b)freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,includ-  
 ing freedom of the press and other media of communication;*
 (c)freedom of peaceful assembly;and
 (d)freedom of association"


Anyone want to move out?


	Richard Pocklington

				THERE ARE NO RULES IN UTOPIA

 POCKLING@SFU.CA

p.s. if I spelled something in a manner that displeases you
      TOO BAD
From: rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:36:01 GMT
Organization: Xanth Watch

paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes:

>It has to be more that a fascinating topic for a few people to justify 
>carrying at our site.  Allowing every newgroup becomes the death of a
>thousand cuts for adequate free space.  There is no group too ridiculous
>to not have a noisy cadre of supporters (alt.food.mcdonalds, 
>alt.fan.john-palmer, etc).  Removing a group is a lot more trouble than
>controlling its creation.

Since all this "silly" groups are in the alt hirachy why not just drop 
all alt groups. Simply don't honour anything connected with alt.
You might loose a couple of good groups, but that is a small price to
pay for getting rid of that pain those "silly" groups seems to give you.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   |
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:31:34 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Aug11.112000.4307@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The actions of the administrators show the chilling effects of the
>law. Because the law is so vague and because it provides no easy way
>to ask for definitive clarifications, such effects are inevitable.
>

The actions of the administrators show the chilling effects of the
increase of litigiousness (sp?) in our society today.  I don't know
if it's as bad in Canada as it is here, but everyone is not primarily
concerned with CYA.  Doctors order tests that, given their druthers,
they would not normally concern themselves on the 1-in-10000 chance
because if that chance hit they would sued up the wazoo.  Medical insurance
costs skyrocket to cover this.  People sue (and win) ladder companies
for not warning them not to position the ladder in cow dung.

The actions of the administrators, when given a situation that *may*
be in violation of Canadian law was only normal.  CYA.  If it *might*
be something they could take the hit for, get rid of it.

As people refuse to take the responsibility for their own actions,
looking for someone else who can be blamed ("I sent my Johnny off
to Manitoba for a quality education and now look at him!  It *must*
be all that PORNOGRAPHY they let in there!") more and more people
will be making similar decisions.

Unless and until we do something about the philosophy that has taken 
hold in our society that nothing can by *my* fault, we will see more 
of this.  Unless and until we do something about the plague of laywers 
who encourage such ideas (as they must in order to make work for 
themselves, because the percentage of laywers in N.America re. the rest 
of the population is by far the largest in the world) we will see more 
of this.  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lazy day, Sunday afternoon.			|
Like to get your feet up, watch TV.		|	-Richard Hartman	
Sunday roast is something good to eat,		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
must be lamb to day 'cause beef was last week!	|
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:33:04 GMT

In article <92JIKM5@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <23498@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy) writes:
>>In article <7JHILW8@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>Why not? The Houston Chronicle does. And they have shown no reluctance to
>>>quote net articles and email (which is why I no longer subscribe).
>
>>And if pressed, which they most surely should have been, they 
>>would have justified their use of articles under "fair use".
>
>Oh, I guess I should explain more. It's not that they used them, it's that
>they misquoted several people rather badly (not just myself), and when I
>pressed them and provided the quotes in context they refused to acknowledge
>they might have made a mistake.

Welcome to the world of newspaper reporting.  As you've already
found out, even your efforts to have the paper correct
or retract its statements got you no where.  So what does this,
then, have to do with the onging "copyrights on USENET discussion?"

>They have the right to engage in yellow journalism, and I have the right
>to not support them. If they can mess up something this simple this badly,
>there's no way I can trust any of their other reporting anyway.

And that is your right, but I see nothing of making any claim
against the newspaper for copyright infringement, etc.  So what's
the point?  

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:7165 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2648 alt.censorship:7015
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:53:37 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug19.201819.20093@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A reply to an article in news.admin]

>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Canada has the very same types of laws, plus constitutional guarantees
>>of free speech too.  One difference being that the balancing act is
>>explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

>Agreed.

Then how could you say the below?

>>The other more critical difference is the level of harm necessary.
>>Canada chose the route of "reasonable person", juries, studies, and
>>simply watching the USA - a case study in almost unrestricted free
>>speech.

>Put another way, Canada inherented from Great Britain the idea that if
>a majority of the legislature says that some class of material is bad
>and should be banned, then they are assumed to be correct. 

>In other words, the legislature can ban anything.

False.  The final arbiter is *still* the Supreme Court of Canada -
the constitution and charter of rights is still the law of the land.
Legislatures can't make exceptions legal on their own.  If a
legislature passes such laws, they are still subject to the Supreme
Court striking down such laws if they're too broad, or completely
unreasonable.

The situation is no different than the US.  Where the Supreme Court
can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
are no explicit escape clauses.  One only need look at the exceptions
that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
of Dr. Alvarez Machain.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Xref: sparky news.admin:6974 misc.legal.computing:1913
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:35:27 GMT

In <1992Aug12.172912.18797@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>I really don't think that anyone beyond the original poster (of say
>the Lotus 123 software) would be liable.  The effort to make the 
>providers of copying technology liable for the misuse of that
>technology has not been accepted by the courts (eg. the Sony
>Betamax Case) and another case where a copyright holder tried to
>have the developers/suppliers of a copy protection defeating
>software program held liable for the copyright violations that
>some users were doing.  The court held that as long as there was
>even one legal use for the technology, then the technology
>providers couldn't be held responsible for those instances when
>a user did violate someones copyright.

Ah, but the question becomes: who is the "user".  An individual making a
copy of a legally acquired "Star Wars" tape is still in violation of
copyright, and LucasFilms would (and has) gone after them.  So, in the
hypothetical of Lotus 123, sites would be liable unless we go on to
(Peter?'s) model of lent services:  the original poster is doing the
copying using thousands of computers, so he/she could be sued for thousands
of individual copyright violations(!?).

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
Our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.futures
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 10:14:16 GMT

In article <mwm.1k0v@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>In <PMDI483@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>> I'd like to note that this is NNTP's fault, not Usenet News. We run
>> Usenet news with internal NNTP connections, but our external connects
>> are all traditional UUCP feeds. We have a number of private news groups,
>> and... yes... it *is* an important capability.

>Peter, the NNTP servers I've dealt with have different sets of
>permissions for feeds vs. reading. I can't check it here, but I
>believe that a host with receive permission (as opposed to read) can
>only get articles that were batched for that host. If that's true, you
>get exactly the same protection for NNTP feeds as you do for UUCP
>feeds.

Well, assuming nobody's cheating, yes... which brings us to:

>Now, if you want to argue that UUCP allows password protection and
>NNTP doesn't, you're right.

More precisely, UUCP allows validation (whether that's done via passwords,
a challenge mechanism, or authentication keys is irrelevant).

>But since you're using NNTP internally,
>either you've decided that this is an acceptable risk, or you already
>have a firewall of some kind in place.

Well, I guess you could say that. We're not on the internet at all... that
sort of qualifies as a firewall. I think I mentioned that, and that we'd
probably have to change if we were to join.

Which is unlikely. It's expensive, and the security implications are pretty
dire.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 18:16:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):
>
>The situation is no different than the US.  Where the Supreme Court
>can and does permit exceptions to the constitution, even though there
>are no explicit escape clauses.  One only need look at the exceptions
>that have resulted in the suspensions of due process in property seizures
>permitted under the anti-drug and anti-organized crime legislation,
>or the violations of two contitutional clauses by the seizure
>of Dr. Alvarez Machain.

	On the contrary, while I admire many features about the Canadian
system, your attitude toward censorship *is* unquestionably different than
our own.

	Eliminate the most obvious form of Canadian censorship (explicit
sexual material) for a moment, and examine some of the other materials
subject to censorship there, most notable among which is material which
takes a position in opposition to your current legal or political postures.
As an example of this kind of material - try to purchase or even subscribe
to a magazine such as "High Times" in Canada. Such magazines have *NO*
explicit sexual content, nor do they specifically encourage the violation of
any laws. Yet, because they take a political stance rather far removed from
that of your government, they are subject to seizure. THAT cannot be done
under US law, and it defines the difference in the two positions rather
clearly.


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,talk.politics.drugs