HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pharris@roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au (Paul Harris)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:40:12 GMT

I think the G command sounds good!

What about some way of ploughing through the news group heierachy, as can
be done with subdirectories?

Also a way of checking which newsgroups I subscribe to (I use nn and have
not yet found the equivalent to dir/reg in news on VMS. I am a relative
newcommer to NEWS).

Regards, Paul Harris
Xref: sparky news.admin:6963 misc.legal.computing:1909
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 15:33:06 GMT
 <1992Aug10.044101.9904@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <0y2mj+k.adamsr@netcom.com> <0H7IPQ2@taronga.com> <8g4mwg#.olson30@netcom.com>

In <8g4mwg#.olson30@netcom.com> olson30@netcom.com (John Sully) writes:

>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>[ ... way to much stuff about USENET copyrights ... ]

>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'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the net....(well actually, I am a tax
preparer, and some lawyer acquiantences of mine have said that that IS
practicing law.)

--
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,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:17:35 GMT

In article <23440@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:

>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.

It does if the terms are clearly presented before posting and he has
to choose between alternatives. Posting on USENET isn't a "right",
neither do you have a "right" to be published in a particular magazine
or in a newspaper. 

It seems you think you have the "right to post with whatever
copyright". But you haven't. You may have to accept certain conditions
on distribution in order to have your article automatically distributed.

The newsstand analogy isn't that bad. If you demand that an
article of yours sent to a magazine shouldn't be distributed to certain
newsstands, then your article may have to be refused.

>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.

Very few (if any) here have been arguing for putting articles in
Public Domain in the strict sense. Those words do have a well-defined
meaning, in contrast with "Pay for Read".

Bengt L.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Xref: sparky news.admin:7207 alt.censorship:7039 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2661
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:29:00 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <pockling.714250039@sfu.ca> pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:

> 	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?

If you're in a comparing mood, the US Declaration of Independence natters on
about Creators and "natural gods".

And, does the "supremacy of god" have any real effect?  Naw, the
last provincial holdout on school prayers has just abandoned the idea.
Though, some states still have it.

>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?

Certainly not south.  The Americans have an unwritten "notwithstanding"
clause.  How else could Dr. Alvarez Machain, or violations of due process
in the anti-drug and anti-organized crime laws and other constitutional violations
be upheld?

Besides, if push comes to shove, I imagine that the Supreme Court of Canada
could overrule a "notwithstanding" clause if it was sufficiently silly.
Though, I suppose a difficulty could arise if the government refused to honour
the decision.  On the other hand, there's nothing preventing the US government
from trying the same thing.
-- 
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: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: USENet defined, one easy lesson...
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:18:44 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <232@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) wrote:
> In article <23401@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
> >Pardon me?  It matters a great deal if they charge more for
> >say, rec.audio than they do for alt.flame, which is not
> >part of USENET.
> 
> alt.flame (and the rest of the alt groups) are as much a part
> of the usenet as anything else.

No, they aren't. They are alt.net, and were set up specifically
because the standard USENET distribution mechanism rejected some
topics. There are a slew of other .nets that were set up so people
could use netnews mechanisms to disseminate information that wasn't
wanted on USENET proper by some set of people, either those setting up
the group, or those who were keeping USENET running.

Defining USENET is the set of heirarchies that net. broke into during
the great renaming: comp., rec., sci., soc., talk., misc., and news.
(it's been a long time, and I may have mangled the list) seems
accurate to me, because the others have different kinds of traffic,
different newsgroup creation rules, or - well, you get the idea.

	<mike
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 11:14:31 GMT

In article <3744@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>I musta missed the vote.  On the other hand, is there a guideline
>posting that shows how to vote on morals?

Yeh, it's a multi-part vote using the single-transferrable vote system (if
the 2nd amendment fails, then transfer my vote to the first) with riders
according to subsection 3. Spaf gets line-item veto and it's still gotta
be approved by Chuq and ratified by a quorum of the backbone cabal.

Weren't you *listening*?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> <MV6I5X3@taronga.com> <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:52:01 GMT

Jim> == Jim Ault <aultj@rpi.edu> 

 Jim> Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet: Censorship
 Jim> is wrong.

 Jim> How is it that (seemingly) everyone accepts moral relativism, and
 Jim> still holds unwaveringly to the idea that censorship is wrong?
 Jim> Just trying to point out some flaws that I see in this
 Jim> ever-present argument.

Perhaps it's from a (consistent) feeling that what you do to/with
yourself, or consenting adults, is your business.

If you wish to censor your reading, that's your business too.  But why
should I let you censor what I read?

--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
            ``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
            Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:44:02 GMT

In article <X7PNPB22w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>> In article <wPXHPB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>> >Similarly, I do not believe that submitting an article to Usenet implies any
>> >consent to anything.  There's certainly no contract of any sort, no
>> >agreement.  The newsgroups are filled with people who have no idea how large
>> >Usenet is in geographical terms, so how can they have consented to having
>> >their articles distributed to places they didn't even know existed?
>> 
>> "I put my article on the fax machine and hit the button labelled 'send
>> to list #4'.  I expected Dave and Mike to get it, but I didn't expect
>> John to get it also.  John did get it; now I want to sue him for
>> violating my copyright by letting his fax machine make a copy of my
>> article."
>
>Wrong analogy.  Change the last sentence to "...by republishing it in his
>magazine".

No, precisely the correct analogy.  "A copy of my article went to John
(and was made by his fax machine).  I didn't even know that John had a
fax machine; how can I have consented to having my article distributed
on a machine I didn't even know existed?"

>Remember, machines don't violate copyright.  Any purely automated copying
>which occurs as part of normal Usenet operation is OK.  Nobody who has a clue
>gives a damn about the normal store-and-forward machine copying of articles. 
>That's not the question.

That's my point.  Now define "normal store-and-forward".  Does it
include mailing magtapes?  CD roms?  Punched paper tape?

The idea of "no human in the loop" is interesting, but hackable.
Suppose I have a machine automatically spool (to cdrom or whatever)
only articles that are mentioned in articles posted to
alt.stuff-I-want-included?
:
>So you're quite right that there's no way I could sue you for allowing your
>computer to copy this article in the normal Usenet way.  After all, I
>commanded that copying.  I just used your computer to do it.

I agree.

>The question is, have I implicitly or explicitly consented to *you* (not your
>computer) choosing to copy it further?  Or in your analogy, have I consented
>to John (not his fax machine) copying my article?

Well, I don't have the right to print it in my newsletter.  I probably
have the right to print a single copy, so I can read it carefully
without straining my eyes.  I have the right to "archive" it, since
that's the same as telling my expire program to ignore it (and
certainly I can refrain from deleting it if I wish).

>I'm amazed that people keep confusing people with computers...

It's probably the other way around :-)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:7221 comp.org.eff.talk:5478 misc.legal.computing:2005
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:49:00 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon) writes:
>
> [Y]ou WILL RETRACT YOUR STATEMENT FORTHWITH.
        ^^^^
I think you must have meant "SHALL" here.

Your impotent "commands" were amusing at first, but now they're
just tiresome.  You'd be more effective at altering other people's
points of view if you modified your personality.

This message brought to you by someone who agrees with a lot of
your content, but cares little for your presentation.

-- 
When you transmit words to your readers over the network, consider
exactly what effect you wish to have, and then choose words that
are most likely to have that effect.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: alan@ernest.dseg.ti.com (Alan Edmonds)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc. - Plano, Tx
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:38:53 GMT
Keywords: newsgroups, creation, removal

In article <1992Aug12.160359.3944@sun44.synercom.hounix.org> medley@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Bert Medley) writes:
>
>The problem occurs when you are running a node using a version of UNIX that
>only allows 32K (or is it 64K) of inodes in a filesystem.  If you carry a 
>full feed, those useless groups chew up inodes for no good reason.  Our local
>user's group, running ISC on a 386/25 has had this happen several times and
>is considering dropping alt.* for that reason.

I run an ISC 2.2.1 system with the 64K inode limit "problem."  My solution 
(thanks to Henry and Geoff via the Cnews performance release and George.Jordan@dseg.ti.com)
is the NEWSCTL/newgroupperm file.  It suppossedly will work with earlier releases of cnews.
You just tell it a newsgroup pattern and what to do.  Here's mine:

alt	any	nv
*	any	yv


I think the format is "newsgroup_pattern from_criteria create_flag_mail_flag"
In my case, alt groups from anyone are not created, but a message is mailed to
the news user.  All other groups are created and a message mailed.  It really
helps to keep the alt dreck from cluttering up the disk.

-- 
Alan Edmonds                                     Texas Instruments, Inc.
I don't speak for TI; TI doesn't speak for me    M/S 8513
Work phone: (214)575-6427                        6620 Chase Oaks Blvd.
Email: alan@ernest.dseg.ti.com                   Plano, Texas  75023
From: jimbo@garbanzo.UUCP (Jim Bianchi)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Keywords: Controlling Flame/Hate Postings
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 10:18:11 PDT
Organization: Garbanzo BBS, (707) 529-1279, Santa Rosa, CA

> news@opencon.com (News Admin) writes:
> >     I am bascially looking for a way people, using there U.S. First
> >amendment rights, not to violate other people rights and also follow
> >the charter of the newsgroups.  If any suggestions please do let me
> >know or postit so that other people will also be educated.

refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom) writes:
 > You seem to be forgetting that the Usenet isn't a United States of
 > America institution, so the 1st amendment applies loosely at best.

     What I *think* is being referred to here is just, given that Usenet 
has an international base of users, the LEGAL PRINCIPLE of "Thou have free 
speech" as codified in the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply (simply because, 
outside of the U.S., it *can't*).

     Sure, I feel that these principles apply to the rest of the world as 
well. Only there is often no legal basis that those concerned can point to 
in the same way U.S. citizens can point to the 1st Amend. Does this reflect 
a "We're superior!" philosophy? Well, of course it does, but that is not 
really relevant to the original arg that referring to the U.S. Constitution 
in this manner is somehow evidence of an elitist attitude on the part of 
Todd. 


     --
     jimbo@garbanzo.UUCP (Jim Bianchi)
     Garbanzo BBS, (707) 529-1279, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: lendl@cosy.sbg.ac.at  (Otmar Lendl)
Subject: Re: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software
Keywords: FAQ G-command
Organization: University of Salzburg
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:33:26 GMT

In article <ZVDIPU5@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)  
writes:
> In article <16lsi9INN8sk@smurf.smurf.sub.org> urlichs@smurf.sub.org  
(Matthias Urlichs) writes:
> >We could store FAQs in a faq.* pseudo-hierarchy. We could even  
crosspost them
> >there, which means that the news transmission software doesn't have to  
be
> >changed. On the downside, having another newsgroup -- in fact, another 
> >hierarchy -- just for the FAQ might be wasteful; but then, that  
hierarchy 
> >could be used for other stuff also.
> 
> Oh! You mean news.answers!
No. The original poster (J.A. Marshall) suggested a screenfull of the
basic information about the group. Hardly any FAQ fits on a screen.
The G-command should inform the user how to obtain a FAQ.
Tho quote from his post:
>     - The charter of the newsgroup,
>     - Whether the newsgroup is moderated or unmoderated,
>     - The e-mail address of the moderator,
>     - How to obtain the FAQ for the newsgroup.
The subject of information provided by this command is the _group_,
and not the _topic_ of the group.

I would really appreciate such a facility.

--
|Otmar Lendl (lendl@cosy.sbg.ac.at) | Student of CS & Math at Salzburg |
|Akademiestr. 15  A-5020 Salzburg   | University (Austria / Europe)    |
| Put the scrabble away Arthur, it won't save the human race !  Ford P.|
Xref: sparky news.admin:7124 news.future:787
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.future
Subject: Re: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:13:09 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <RKEIJ4E@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|In article <mwm.1k0v@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:

|>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).

NNTP 1.5.11 (and 1.6 presumably) does provide for validation on a per
machine or per-user basis.  I will be doing a fair amount of experimenting
with it.  (in 1.5.11 it's busted but trivial to fix, and I've not been able
to find NNTP 1.6 or the new RFCs)
-- 
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:6966 comp.org.eff.talk:5337 misc.legal.computing:1910
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:18:01 GMT

I think I've had enough of strident tones, arguments without a foundation, and
tacky copyright messages.

Thank goodness for kill lists!

 - Ron Sharp.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:36:54 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <920817.275105147@foucault.postmodern.com>, mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
> In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>> mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>> [...]
>> >I've stayed out of this so far, but I don't think you understand how
>> >offensive I (and others) find the above paragraph.  I have absolutely
>> >no interest in any cooperation, no matter how slight, with any form of
>> >state censorship.  I believe that censorship is not merely evil but Evil, 
>> >and if your government gives you problems about that, I think you
>> >should oppose them.
>> 
>> For a person who is usually relatively well informed, this is a remarkably
>> *stupid* and insulting remark.
> 
> I could say the same about your original article as well.

              [rest deleted]

What I can't believe, is that this isn't even X-posted to another
group.  What's this doing in news.admin?  === Al Sparks
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:21:08 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug17.201438.20177@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.152104.3300@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>What infuriates me is the double standard.

>>For example, in the _Globe and Mail_ story, Lionel Tolan, Simon
>>Fraser's director of academic computer services, said "It's the same
>>as if somebody wants Playboy or Penthouse.  We don't have them in the
>>university library." When in fact, _Playboy_ *is* in the SFU library.

>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>>I don't believe that there is a double standard.  The material at hand
>>isn't Playboy or Penthouse material.  The material that caused the problems
>>in a.s.b are hardly things that would be found in either magazine.

>So why was alt.sex banned, too?

Because it seemed evident that the risks of illegal material and adverse
publicity were sufficiently high that they felt compelled to do *something*
about it (if only to avoid hearing damage), but article screening was
impractical, so they axed it.

alt.sex isn't like playboy:

	- There ain't no editor, so nobody screens the material going in.
	  Thus the risk of illegal material is very high.
	- It isn't a printed magazine, so customs can't have a look at it
	  to ensure that no illegal material is in it.

>>Furthermore, on a more general level, most universities have constitutions
>>or codes of ethics that require them to be more selective of material than
>>the law would necessarily require them to.  Even in the USA.

>Academic freedom compels university administrations to be, if
>anything, less selective. The value of material is suppose to be
>determined by each academic for him or herself, not by the
>administration.

Tell me, just how long would Jim Keegstra last at an American University?
Probably less than a day.  Or how long would a "No means harder" poster
stay up?  Probably just long enough for the administration to start
threatening expulsion.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: news.admin