From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Keywords: situational ethics, appropriate cancels, Guido and Luigi
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:20:51 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <Brpt62.65u@redpoll.neoucom.edu> red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
>
>* * *  Some situations in which a cancel may be justified.  * * *
>
>1.   When a sendsys attack is made,

Given.

>2.   When copyrighted material is posted without permission of the
>     copyright owner,

Have to have a way to verify permission or lack of same....

>3.   When an article is posted to a moderated group with bogus approval,
>4.   When a mal-formed article crashes news systems,

Reasonable.

>5.   When an enormous article threatens to clog uucp links,

Hmmmm......  Some systems clog w/ smaller articles than others (say
f'r example, I only have 1 or 2 meg left, I could clog up a lot easier
than other systems might....)  Of course, really large articles are
especially bothersome to people w/ UUCP/modem links instead of direct
net connections (like me).

>6.   When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,

Pyramid schemes *are* illegal (in the US).

>7.   When a binary article is posted to a discussion group,

If we have a "cancel" could we implement a "refile" to redirect
such articles to the proper group?

>8.   When an article violates the accepted charter of a newsgroup,

This one is pretty much self-regulating by the members of the
group.  It could cause quite a cry of "censorship" if one news admin
decided to cancel an article & others, perhaps in the groups itself,
decided it belongs or is at least worthy of discussion.  This does
not apply to truely flagrant cases (e.g. commercial ads for legal services
in comp.whatever), however I would rather stay away from this one
than set a bad precedent...

>9.   When a forged article is posted in the name of a victim,
>10.  When a forged newgroup or rmgroup is posted,

Ok.

>11.  When an escaped newgroup changes the moderation status of
>     a newsgroup,

never ran across this one -- wouldn't this come under "forged"?

>12.  When a blatant advertisement is cross-posted to multiple
>     groups outside the "biz" hierarchy,

See #8 -- one man's blatant is another man's in-context reply.....sometimes.

>13.  When a gateway recycles old articles with new headers,

Ouch!

>14.  When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,

Unless continually re-redirected, the groups themselves can 
be pretty well self-regulating on this one.  And there's always
kill file entries to avoid anything cross-posted to alt.cascade....
See #8.

>15.  When an article is maliciously cross-posted (e.g. to misc.test),

"maliciously"?

>16.  When a request for postcards for Craig Shergold is posted,

Yes!!!

>17.  When the old "FCC proposes tax on modems" file reappears,

Haven't seen this one yet, but I don't get a full newsfeed....

>18.  When an article is inappropriately cross-posted,

See #8 again.

>19.  When the author of an article requests a cancellation,

Of course.

>20.  At any time, and for any reason,
>........................................
>it is acceptable for
>........................................
>A.  the author of the article
>B.  the copyright holder
>C.  the author's sysadmin or news admin
>D.  the newsgroup's moderator (if a moderated group)
>E.  the gateway's admin
>F.  a highly respected news admin such as (insert name here)
>G.  the newsgroup's enforcer(s) (see P.S.)
>H.  any sysadmin or news admin
>I.  the injured party
>J.  J. Random Hacker
>K.  no one
>........................................
>to post a net-wide cancellation of the article,
>........................................
>a.  and anonymous/forged cancels are OK in this case.
>b.  and no explanation is necessary.
>c.  if an explanation is posted to "control" in the cancel message itself.
>d.  if an explanation is mailed to the author of the original article.
>e.  if an explanation is posted to the newsgroup(s) in which the article
>    appeared.
>f.  if an explanation is posted to news.admin.
>g.  if an explanation is posted to the nntp-managers mailing list.  :-)
>h.  if an explanation is posted to news.announce.important.
>i.  no matter what the excuse.

???
Is this a "choose one from column A and two from column B" thing?

>P.S.  Much of the criticism has been against a self-appointed canceller.
>      The elected post of "enforcer" would be a newsgroup-sanctioned
>      canceller... someone who would do for a newsgroup what Guido and
>      Luigi did for the USENET Cartel (is it true they are now working
>      for the INET Gang?), but with less pain.  :-)

For a moderated group, the enforcer is obvious.  For un-moderated
groups, mailbox stuffings from the "legitimate" and outraged group
members frequently work for many inappropriate postings.  

As a general rule I would have to suggest that illegal postings 
(pyramid schemes, copyright violations) *may* be cause for a news 
admin originated cancel, but what is illegal in Canada may not be 
illegal in the US (f'r example folks -- I know there are more countries 
involved in the net).  Ref. the recent "alt.sex...." flap on Canadian systems.

Some "classics", like the Shergold letters, can and should be canceled
by anyone who recognizes them -- although a followup posting to news.admin
would be nice.  Also any traffic-blockers (1.2 gig transmission containing
someone's entire hard disk dump so the New York office can get it by
Monday....)

Most other cases should be brought up individually, unless there is
a time-limitation for some reason.  In which case a followup posting
should still be given even after the cancel is issued.....

Well, there's my $.02 -- have fun!

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I am just a figment of your imagination...
			...what does that say about *your* mental health?
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing