HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <bsuf7h.3wx@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
>Dreck is no less dreck if it gets filed in 'junk'.

	$ grep junk /usr/lib/news/active
	junk 0000000000 000001 x

Bingo!  No more "dreck".  [Except for the complaints in the log file.]

>						     Creating a bogus group
>(temporarily) costs nothing.

	Does too.  OK, the system resources are quite small.  But the
*human* waste!  Every time you read the news, you're invited to subscribe
to yet another *stupid* group;  if you're so unwise as to say yes, you
may well eventually be told that this group is bogus.  It was bad enough
"joining-up" when there were only a hundred or so groups, most with
reasonably obvious purposes;  now that there are thousands, many obscure,
many displaying a juvenile sense of humour, it's not surprising that
most users never get started, or start and give up.

	A "normal" dreck message -- a cascade or a "me too" or a silly
flame -- affects only the readers of that group.  A bogus group affects
*every* administrator and *every* reader on that fraction of systems
where the group is created.  Even if that's only five seconds and a
million readers, the waste is around 1400 person-hours.  I'll leave
the cost in dollars to your imagination.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Subject: nonconforming news Message-IDs of last week
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:01:46 GMT

Here is a list of Message-IDs discarded by twinsun's news software last week
because they do not conform to the Internet RFC 1036 and RFC 822 standards.
If a Message-ID from your site is on this list,
your news or mail software is probably broken and should get fixed.
The headings describe the probable reason for nonconformance.

(unknown cause)

	<gopher-faq_08-04-92@mudhoney.micro.umn.edu>,<1992May29.161107.27400@news2.cis.umn.edu>

	<4421330831071992.A00535.RHEA.1167FA1F2D00>

	<raboud.20.0@>

	<mac.24@mac@ur.utk.ed>
	<mac.25@mac@ur.utk.ed>

	<713451718;-}23792@menora>

	<NEMO@NOWHERE.EDU.92Aug15234021@husc10.harvard.edu>

	<14_Aug_92_09:31:13_BST_#9071@UK.AC.BHAM.IBM3090>

	<13.Aug.1992,.11:14:08.TPM@uk.ac.rl.ib>

	<1992Aug12.130143.22231@%fims@uu.psi.com>

B News configuration botch

	<195@.UUCP>

C News (pre-1992) configuration botch

	<1992Aug12.100630.21@chsra2.decnet@vms.macc.wisc.edu>

NewsWatcher 1.3d1 (obsolete)

	<steve.herman-130892173316@hermasj.msfc.nasa.gov.>

	<mwalker-110892145014@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-120892090226@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-120892141120@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-120892165912@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-120892170321@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-130892143116@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-130892144504@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-140892084316@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>
	<mwalker-140892140416@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>

NNR (obsolete version)

	<92230.16:38:06.932267.C96@vm.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:36:27 GMT

In article <23421@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
>You show clearly that you have not bothered to read much of the early
>discussion on "pay for read" before the anti-copyright people got
>involved.  Definitions have been offered, and they've been attacked
>ONLY by people who have otherwise indicated that they do not want
>to honor copyright.

Who, me? Boy, have you got the wrong guy.

>My restrictions have been sufficient and clear for at least 5 years,

Having never put them to the test, how can you say that?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Limiting religious speech
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:16:34 GMT


Ok, here's a question for anti-censorship people:

How many of you are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling in
Lee v. Weisman, which held prayer at graduation ceremonies
unconstitutional?   If this isn't stifling free speech, what is? 

Let's all raise our voices and demand that this be overturned.

Right?

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Aston University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:15:15 GMT

peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
: In article <1992Aug11.183602.4348@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
: >     One more round at least.
: 
: >In article <xczmsjg.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
: >>...suppression of
: >>"porn" is a Victorian phenomenon and was little-practised before the
: >>19th century.
: 
: >     That is, little-practised when the media had very little
: >distribution and most people were illiterate.
: 
: There has always been a *lot* of what you call "porn" around. Please
: check any good university library for a number of relevant historical
: texts.

Though it is quite possible that the term 'ponography' was coined by
those who wished to censor it.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Reply-To: Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:10:11 GMT
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal

waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) writes:

>First of all, one person's dreck is another persons fascinating topic.

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.

>Second, a responsible administrator is apparently a censor, self-appointed
>or otherwise.

Of course they are, they have to be as part of the job.  Every time you make
a decision to allocate resources, something is censored.  Example: not
carrying the pictures groups to make room for more text groups. 

>I'm personally with the opinion that says "newgroups are generally
>harmless, and rmgroups are generally not".

Perhaps in a smaller site that's true.  Our news server has a community
in excess of 7,000 users.

/pbp
-- 
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
	-- J. Neil Schulman
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:18:29 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

[...]
>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,
[... etc.]

Nothing I've read or heard suggests that the administrators were
motivated by fear of lawsuits.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky news.admin:7201 soc.culture.arabic:3381 misc.test:9908 talk.bizarre:26940
From: minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas)
Newsgroups: news.admin,soc.culture.arabic,misc.test,alt.moslem.wanted.gay,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:55:03 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <1992Aug20.134432.29517@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.110023.5851@Princeton.EDU> greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes:
>> after all, Ali Laaridh, the spokesman of the Tunisian Islamic movement
>>Annadha, is homosexual
>
>  What is the evidence to support this; is this a rumor or fact? I find this
>suggestion highly unlikely.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mazen Mokhtar
>
>
>
There is no evidence to support this. muslim organizations. The reason why the
Tunisian Islamic Movement is so "accepting" of Laridh's alleeged homosexuality
is because they don't believe the government. They know that the government is
lying to the people, yet again.

zafar
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:26:17 GMT

In article <scs.713625562@hela.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:
>
>>You obviously don't remember one fine morning a couple of years ago, when
>>BIFF(TM) (particularly irked by something), decided to send out 75 or so
>>newgroups...
>
>The cleanup effort after the BIFF(TM) is still less than I'd spend
>going around doing the newgroups manually.  If the biffism happened
>once a month that'd be a different story.

You're right. An occasional clean-up effort probably takes less time than
you would routinely spend doing addgroups manually. However, if you have
a few thousand users who read news, several hundered of whom might have
gotten the BIFFism in their .newsrcs by the time you get around to the
clean-up, and then subsequently deluged with "Bogus Newsgroups:" messages,
answering their mail might keep you busy for a while to come :-). Likely ranging
from "news is broken. all my groups are going bogus" to "you never should
have let it happen in the first place"...

-h
Xref: sparky news.admin:7173 comp.mail.misc:2708 news.answers:2565
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Copyright Deposit Unconstitutional? (was: The Great Floating ...)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:06:16 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Aug11.205128.17268@ils.nwu.edu> mccoy@ils.nwu.edu writes:
>In article <206@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug6.134722.6166@panix.com> sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber) writes:
>> >
>> >So, it is not inherently unreasonable for Congress to require deposit of
>> >a work in exchange for additional rights.  Congress didn't have to pass
>> >copyright laws at all if it didn't want to, and could repeal them tomorrow,
>> >in theory.
>> 
>> Not anymore.  Since we've signed Berne our copyright laws are part
>> of an international treaty & I think it's the executive branch that
>> would have to void that treaty -- I don't think Congress can.   ;-)
>
>Sorry.  The U.S. Constitution, according to article V is "the supreme law
>of the land".  I believe that it has been established that Congress may not
>"give away" a power given to it by the Constitution (Con Law was a while
>ago, so maybe I am wrong...), so the only way to prevent Congress from
>deciding to do whatever it wants to regarding copyrights and patents is by
>changing the Constitution.  Last time I checked there was no such amendment
>pending...

I'd have to check, but I believe that althought the executive negotiates
treaties & the pres (or sec. stat) signs 'em, congress does have to
ratify them (I think).

This means that presumably congress has already made Berne the law
of the land.  And I am *still* not certain that congress has the
power to make/break international treaties -- so that power would
not have been one given to 'em by the consitution for them to
"give away".

(I know I sound a bit disjointed here, but basically I think that
congress cannot break the treaty itself, and if the treaty requires
certain actions on the parts of it's signatories, than congress
can't do nuthin about it.)



		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@uLogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Extensive studies have shown that 93% of all statistics are meaningless.
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Want to redirect mail to newsgroup
From: andyb@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Andy Brager)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:33:19 GMT
Organization: Public Access BBS for Southern California 1 310 3756089

ISC V3 3.0, sendmail version 1.35 according to the version line 
in sendmail.cf.

I know this is a faq, I've seen it asked before.  Does this 
group *have* a FAQL?  Anybody know where this question is
answered?  

I want to take incoming mail, destined for a certain user ( user's
name is mminfo in this case and /usr/mail/mminfo is over the ulimit, 
so I'd also like to know who's ulimit to raise, sendmail?),
and have all incoming mail to said user redirected to a local newsgroup.  

In addition, though not mandatory, it would be real nice if anyone 
posting to that group from this machine, would have it automatically 
mailed to the mailing list it came from.

Any takers?  Thanks in advance !!!!

-  Andy
-- 
           DO NOT BUY TOUCHE COMPUTERS -email for details
                 Vote Joe Walsh for Vice President
      Large Packages (1K+ Total): cerritos.edu!swc!wndrsvr!andyb
   -I don't know but I been told; two sides to every story - Joe Walsh
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.futures
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:32:27 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <PMDI483@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> In article <1992Aug13.152930.14226@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
> >>We are running a news server. We have gotton requests from some of our 
> >>local users for private (local) news groups. This would also be ideal 
> >>for dealing with internal news items.
> 
> >We used to have this with notesfiles. It was great, the professors
> >had one, most every research group had one.
>
> >We tried to keep it when we switched to Netnews and NNTP, but it was
> >just too hard.
> 
> 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.

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

Has anyone answered Thomas's original question? If so, it either never
made it here, or has already expired.

	<mike
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:29:12 GMT

In article <a_rubin.713633586@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>In <8g4mwg#.olson30@netcom.com> olson30@netcom.com (John Sully) writes:
>>I talked with my brother (recent grad of Boalt Law, intellectual property 
>>specialty, Tech Law Review) and his take on USENET (yes, he does know what
>>it is and *how it works*) is that:
>
>>	1.  Copyright exists on every article whether claimed or not.
>
>>	2.  A judge is most likely to find an "implied permission to copy"
>>	    in the act of posting an article.
>
>I don't think that (2) is  enough to protect USENet "as we know it" ...
>"implied permission to copy" could only give USENet sites as much rights as
>the poster had; if the poster was violating copyright (posting 1-2-3), then
>that would make all sites violate copyright.

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.

SO... I agree with the statement that a judge is "likely to find
an implied permission...."  I think that position is heavily
favored by the facts (eg. USENet has existed for a considerable
(someone said at least 14) number of years without anyone even
attempting to pursue any legal action against the network.
The longer that goes, the more remote any possibility would
exist for a ruling against USENet, USENet prividers, etc.  That
was (my opinion) a consideration in the filing of the suit against
Sony.  The movie industry had to take the initiative (which they
did) to try and "outlaw" VCRs before they became so widespread
that they became totally unchallengable simply based on the sheer
numbers.  That would be like the copyright holder of a painting trying
to stop the sale of photpgraphic cameras today so no one could
violate the copyright by taking a photograph of the painting.
It just ain't gonna happen.

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
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 02:10:43 GMT

I hate like hell to disagree with Chris, but...

In article <3738@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>People keep harping on "universal right to free speech".  The "freedom
>of speech" you keep talking about is freedom of speech without responsibility,
>freedom of speech bedamned with the body count.

So far as I know, speech has never killed anyone.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky news.admin:7031 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2587 alt.censorship:6949
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: 14 Aug 92 02:46:14 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug11.113418.11233@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>>The problem is that *some* of the postings to a.s.b. are apparently
>>beyond what the law will accept. [...] The only other alternative would be to
>>manually screen what goes through, and nobody's that much of an idiot.

>An illegal posting could appear in any newsgroup. By your reasoning,
>Netnews is, as a practical matter, illegal in Canada. By your
>reasoning, imported newspapers, books, and satellite TV programs are,
>as a practicle matter, illegal in Canada. So is live radio and TV.

This is nonsense.  This is what comes out of being too simplistic -
not everything is black and white.

It's simply a matter of risk management.  Whether the risk is
legal charges, adverse publicity, or your mother screaming at you,
you have to determine out what portion of the material is of questionable
legality, and decide whether that percentage is an acceptable risk
or not.

In all of the media that you refer to, there are editors in the loop,
or at least identifiable people.  So there's almost always some assurance
that *somebody* identifiable will be screening the material or can be
called to task for violations.

Not so with USENET.  Which is rapidly descending in the average level
of maturity.
-- 
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
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:22:16 GMT
Reply-To: Paul-Pomes@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

alan@ssd.ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay) writes:

>What better reason is there for carrying a group, other than people on
>your site wish to read it?

Because I have limited resources and a very large user base to serve.
What real benefit is there to the alt.fan.<net personality> groups?
alt.food.mcdonalds, etc, etc?

/pbp
-- 
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and read Books shall not be infringed."
	-- J. Neil Schulman
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:50:37 GMT

In article <3738@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>People keep harping on "universal right to free speech".  The "freedom
>of speech" you keep talking about is freedom of speech without responsibility,
....


No so, it includes the responsibility to fight bad speech with good
speech rather than with censorship. Thus, part of the price of free
speech is that bad speech will be heard.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,talk.politics.drugs