HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Distribution: ba...
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:33:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <1992Jul22.042249.9746@ennews.eas.asu.edu> sridhar@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Sridhar Venkataraman) writes:
>Who is at fault here for the leakage of "ba" articles?
>Is Distribution: ca (California) a solution for this?
>Path: ennews!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!
>+	nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!widener!eff!iWarp.intel.com|inews!
>+	mipos2.intel.com!pkundu

I suggest that trying to solve a distribution leakage problem at the
"global" level is a lost cause.  As you see from other followups it is
not uncommon to find that the "leakage" was intentional at some points.
Yes, at some site someone intentionally asked for it and then
unintentionally passed it on.  But even if you find that inept news
admin and can get their cooperation there is no guarantee that the
distribution won't leak thru some other path.

I suggest that you talk to your feed, asuvax, and ask them why they are
sending you "ba" when you don't want it.  Ask them to ",!ba" in your sys
entry.  Better yet ask them to not use "/all" on your feed.

Of course asuvax is likely to respond that they don't get "ba" and so
don't need to block it.  You can quickly disprove that and perhaps
convince them to talk to "cs.utexas.edu" about the feed to asuvax.

					Jerry
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Aston University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:53:40 GMT

dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe) writes:
: 
: Two quick comments on Scott's post.  One, there are many countries in the 
: world connected to Usenet that have much more relaxed rules about porn 
: and child porn that the USA or Canada do, especially those countries in 
: Europe.  Secondly don't make the assumption that all the people on Usenet 
: are of legal age.  I personally started college at 16, I know people who 
: started at 13 or younger.  All of these people have the same access you 
: do, it just turned out that I didn't find Alt.Sex.* till after I was 18.  
: And there are many people out there who have access to alt.sex heirarchy 
: though private bulletin boards which carry usenet groups.  If someone 
: wants to get to the heirarchy he/she can very easily, and without much 
: money or an account at a college or work.  I am not saying I am against 
: censorship, but I believe that those places which do allow access to such 
: newsgroups shoul make sure the people who are using them are of legal age 
: and realize what is in the content of the newsgroups.
Just one point, so far as European countries being more liberal in their
attitudes, there is one obvious exception.
This one, the good 'ol United Kingdom.
Alt.sex.* dosn't even make it in to the country, which sounds even more
silly when you realise that one of the main feeds into the UK for netnews
is via the Netherlands.
(the only stuff which gets through is that which is crossposted to other,
'OK', groups)
If you find a site in the UK, with an uncensored feed, then they probably
have a feed bypassing the UKC backbone site.
(All you need is someone willing to offer a nntp feed, mcsun.eu.net,
which is UKC's feed is probably as good as any, if the volume dosn't
over do the 64kbs link)
But then the UK has some odd laws as whitnessed by the recent (10 months ago)
case with 'The Lovers' video which used the educational loophole to get round
UK censorship regulations.
Yes you can show _anything_ so long as it is 'educational', ordinary
books, films and videos have a list as long as your arm (thats in stacked
fanfold paper :-) ) of what cannot be shown, mentioned or whatever.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Beals - Third Strike
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:33:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

Forgive me again, but there's just been so much flamage on this
subject that I've gotten lost.  Has anyone actually tried to defend
Bandy's actions?  I was just put off by Sef's actions.

--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: article size limit
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:07:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Jul24.130755.16560
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>x= 64 seems rather outdated.

>Since very few posts go to more than 10 continuations, x=1024 would be a
>better setting.

>And I know this would screw those people reading news on a ZX81 using a
>newsfeed delivered via papertape. If they cannot afford real machines
>let them write some splitting software.

>(Heh heh heh, this one will wind up PC weenies)

Why? I've got files bigger than 1 meg. It's not like I'd ever have to do
something that'd require having the *entire* article in RAM at once.

There are only two "64k" limits in dealing with "personal" computers.
First, the address space limit on most 8-bit processors. And second,
Intel's 64k segment size on the 8086, 80186, and 80286. Both of which
can be worked around.


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/56	 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently)
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Copyright Summary (was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:03:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.184805.19243@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.UUCP () writes:
>Giving away (forwarding to friend, etc) yet still retaining a copy for
>yourself happens all the time and while a technical violation
>is in my opinion a totally unenforceable aspect.  I seriously doubt that
>there is ever likely to be a finding of copyright violation for a single
>reproduction situation.  Copyright violation suits are filled because
>the holder of the copyright sees a significant lose of expected
>revenue because of the violation.  It would be interesting to see
>if there's any cases that have happened in the past involving only
>a single "illegal" copy being made of a generally bland/normal
>document (as opposed to a famous painting, etc.)

Yes there are analogous situations involving sheet music.  Churches has been
successfully sued because a soloist just wanted to make a single copy for
the pianist.  You will find noone more rabid about copyright issues then
the people in the music industry.  The church was accused of multiply counts
of copyright violation, most of which involved several copies made for
the whole choir, but some of the counts were of the "single" copy variety.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Non-compliant articles, week ending 26 July 92
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 11:44:16 GMT

         Invalid Headers, week ending 26 July 92

    The following is a list of Message IDs 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, your news software is probably out of 
    compliance with the RFCs on netnews articles and should be fixed.

Header contains non-header line:
	<1992Jul19.162036.3641@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
		`Keywords:try a little harder now'
	<615@ceylon.gte.com>
		`References:<130942@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1992Jul21.225210...'
	<331206@mordor.com> `soc.culture.vietnamese:15267'
	<1992Jul23.184024.16671@novell.com>
		`Sender:John Berger (jeberger@novell.com)'
	<1696@kluge.fiu.edu> `Keywords:'
	<1703@kluge.fiu.edu> `Keywords:'
	<1753@kluge.fiu.edu> `Keywords:'
	<1992Jul20.135256.7794@cfa.harvard.edu> `Organization:Who has any?'
	<40407@ogicse.ogi.edu> `Expires:2 days'
	<54924@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> `Keywords:geek'
	<1992Jul23.160518.20921@eng.ufl.edu>
		`Keywords:Sun Screen Saver Blanker'
	<84022@netnews.upenn.edu> `Distribution:'
	<84167@netnews.upenn.edu> `Expires:'
	<92205.090613X82217GB@wuvmd.wustl.edu> `yello'
	<711955604snx@fragile.uucp> `'
	<16285@mendip.UUCP> `Organization:	ICL North America'

No @ in Message ID:
	<..0000.1992.0726.0046.0046> 
	<..0000.1992.0726.0047.0047> 
	<..0000.1992.0726.0051.0051> 
	<5118321524071992.A01783.RHEA.1167C3DE2C00> 
	<920722161640427-MTAJLUG:> 
	<920722162234988-MTAUHRRZN2:> 
	<920723192548820-MTAUHRRZN2:> 
	<920724090120864-MTAJLUG:> 
	<> 
	<MysteryMan.16Jul92.17890854287> 

No From: header:
	<1992Jul23.202752.17060@Princeton.EDU> 
	<1992Jul23.203356.17409@Princeton.EDU> 
	<1992Jul24.203931.4118@Princeton.EDU> 
	<24739.711465895@kremvax.hq.demos.su> 

Date in future (when received):
	<1992Jul21.201402.1@husky1.stmarys.ca> `23 Jul 92 12:14:02 GMT'
	<92441112702991/384008@CINE88> `Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:51:00 N'
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 2.0, 1992/06/25 01:41:36
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:46:37 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <23273@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj) wrote:
> Does what?  First, you replace my words with your
> phrase "no for-profit redistribution".  Those words that you
> use are, you are well aware, are NOT what I've
> said, you've misquoted me in order to set up your
> straw man, that you'd like to burn down.  Well, pardon
> me if I scream "fire" while it burns.

...

> Both of which exist only in your head.

... 

> Only to you, it sounds like that.

Well, it appears that JJ is more interested in flaming than in
clarifying the restrictions on his copyright . This makes me believe
that his copyright is just a meaningless piece of text. I'll treat it
as such.

	<mike

Xref: sparky news.admin:6304 comp.mail.misc:2502 news.answers:2283
From: andyb@wndrsvr.la.ca.us (Andy Brager)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Solution to: History file too large
Summary: Uh oh.  A FAQ!  (sort of...)
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:47:01 GMT
Organization: Wonder Server - Public Access for SoCal


Some time ago I posted the following article.

> ISC Unix V3 3.0
> C news Patchdate 27-Aug-1991
> 
> Well, here I am asking about the history file again.  I've cut
> the number of days I keep history down, but I would really like to 
> know of a way to let the history file grow larger without
> bumping up against the ulimit.    I've tried a program that execs
> a new shell with a higher limit.  I've put that program in each 
> of my cron entries calling anything news or uucp related.  So anything
> fired off by cron starts out with a huge ulimit.  That works.  I've
> also placed various .profiles in /, /usr/spool/uucppublic/, and 
> /usr/lib/uucp/.  The first (if not only) thing in that file is this
> program (newlimit) that execs a new shell with a higher ulimit.  I'm
> not sure if this works (again, the program works just fine).
> 
> The PROBLEM is that I'm *still* getting warnings about my history
> file being too large.   How can I fix it so that my history file
> will grow as large as I want?  I've even increased the limit in
> /etc/default/.login and even *that* didn't work! (Though I don't
> want that as a permanent fix...can't have users with 80 MB files
> laying around...).
> 
> I just dropped over 10MB of news because of this and I'm not a happy
> camper.  Please email or I may not see it.  Thanks in advance!!


Well, I didn't receive any answers.  However, a week or so later
I replaced /usr/lib/uucp/uuxqt with a dummy, which fired off that 
"newlimit" program with a nice big ulimit, which then exec'ed the 
old uuxqt.  Works like a charm.

-  Andy
-- 
		DO NOT BUY TOUCHE COMPUTERS -email for details
	Large Packages (1K+ Total): cerritos.edu!swc!wndrsvr!andyb
     Shake the hand, of the man, who shook the hand, of the father of TCP/IP!
	-I don't know but I been told; two sides to every story - Joe Walsh
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: article size limit
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.181010.10031@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>But what you are really saying is that you need a different access mechanism.

Fine. *you* buy me the hardware and write the software and port it to my
particular system and integrate it with my local mods. If you're not willing
to do that then pontificating about it is counterproductive.

Oh yeh, you also need to convince PSI to install it. With their track record
(they still won't put PEP modems at all POPs, though they have no shortage of
them) I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

>The point is that the basic unit of information should not be
>constrained by the hardware. If you have weenie hardware you should fix
>your connection to cope with it's limitations. What youy are doing is
>using the fact that historicaly the net operated in a manner which was
>convenient to you. There is no reason why this should continue to be the
>case.

Of course not. The net operates in a manner which is convenient to the
people who operate the net.

>This is the same old FORTRAN argument, the demand to maintain
>compatibility with the past at all costs. With a feed of that nature I
>don't see that a 1Mb file is going to be very feasible even if
>transfered in chunks.

Sure, I get multi-megabyte data sets all the time, nicely chopped up by
remote FTP packages.

>Ergo the real solution for you is a newsfeed with
>kermit (or somesuch built in), it is not a real soulution for the rest
>of us to try to stick to 64K since to a first approximation you won't be
>able to read the posts of that size anyway.

Why on earth not? I've got about 300 users on 40 minicomputers with an
average of a Gig of disk apiece, plus something like 70 Sparc-2s, on the
other side of that link.

This is not unusual. I don't know what sort of site you're at, but most
commercial sites in this country don't consider Usenet a high priority item.
Outside the government subsidised net low-bandwidth UUCP links are pretty
common.

You donate something that solves the problem, like Henry Spencer did, then
come back and tell me to eat cake if I don't use it. In the meantime, keep
your posts under a couple of hundred K or expect them to be blackholed at
surprisingly many sites.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: composer@world.std.com (Jeff Kellem)
Subject: Re: What is "pay-per-read"?
Reply-To: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Organization: Beyond Dreams
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:00:06 GMT

merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
 > this is fairly straight forward, although a copyright to an id which is
 > shrouded in secrecy is sort of wierd.

Actually, it's fairly common.  Many authors use a pen name -- their work
tends to be copyrighted under that pseudonym.  FYI...

		-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Changing follow up ( was Re: Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 15:16:52 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> According to jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch):
> >Doing anything devious with the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
> 
> I think this analogy's bogosity rates on the order of one gilley:
> terrorists kill many innocent bystanders to achieve their goals.

Right, but for the wrong reason.

terrorist n. One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or
   coercing government or community (Concise OED)

Killing people is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a
terrorist.

However, it is the case that inappropriate Followup-To: lines aren't terrorism
by any stretch of the imagination.  Show me someone who's suffered terror as
a result of a Followup-To: line and I'll show you someone who should stop
dropping acid.


mathew
-- 
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.

Xref: sparky news.admin:6448 comp.org.eff.talk:5073 misc.legal.computing:1675
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:08:29 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) writes:
> In article <mwm.1b85@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (
> >2) Providing a mechanism that allows people who *don't* want certain
> >forms of USENET reproduction to happen (for instance, to cdrom) to
> >flag their articles.
> 
> 	I thought that there is such a mechanism. One simply leaves
> 	Newsgroups: header empty. At least local implementation of
> 	Inews restricts any unwanted reproduction very efficiently.

You misunderstand, presumably through wilful stupidity or out of the mistaken
belief that we will find your pedantic reply amusing.

What is wanted is a mechanism to allow certain forms of Usenet reproduction,
whilst not allowing others.

That is, we want a finer-grained method of determining whether articles are
reproduced.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard

Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: thayne@unislc.uucp (Thayne Forbes)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:09:10 GMT

From article <1992Jul22.191735.11599@clarinet.com>, by brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton):
> In article <mwm.19cx@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>>
>>So - anyone have any ideas on what the compromise could be?
> 
> 
> Sure, model it like broadcasting, only better, because there is no
> spectrum to allocate and thus no excuse for government regulation.

Not to ignore Brad's lucid comments, which I didn't include, but we seem
to be looking for a good metaphor to bounce these ideas off.  When I try
to explain News to my family/friends, I compare it to a REALLY big party
held in a ballroom with lots of loud people talking about every concievable
subject.  I am perfectly free to wander between people and listen to any
of the conversations, and even participate if I want.  In this setting, I
believe that I would have no rights over my speach.

Is this valid?  Anyone?
-- 
           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayl[e]
Thayne Forbes
thayne@unislc.slc.unisys.com
Xref: sparky news.admin:5992 comp.org.eff.talk:4722 misc.legal.computing:1402
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:57:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23256
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Jul21.002929.19936@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>> Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
>> Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
>> Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

>I'll just take time to note that I am disregarding this posters
>copyright in at *least* three ways.
Let's see about that.
>First I'm reading this on a commercial system.
That's been addressed. You are wrong.
>Second I am rebroadcasting
>a partical copy of the article.
Again, addressed. Quotes for "fair use" are well established.
Your particular case seems a bit bogus in the logical sense, but
it was clearly a quote.
>Finally I did not include a complete copy
>of the copyright notice.
I see.  Given your other quoting, you could be quoting my copyright
notice as an example.  It's not clear.  In any case, I'm hardly
required to persue content-free baiting.

-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like free 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.
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:37:39 GMT

In <KQVH21I@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>As far as *I* am concerned, the result in the Ham case is simply wrong. I
>see no need to distance myself from it, and should a similar case come up
>in amateur radio again I'm prepared to help if I can. In the meantime, how
>about coming up with some good defence that doesn't involve jettisoning Hams?

As a (not very active) HAM, I have to disagree with Peter.  The Amateur Radio
Service rules contain a *long* history of such enforcement practices.  The FCC
rules contain quite specific rules regarding extremely *strict* requirements
for repeater operators regarding monitoring the repeater output, normal
station operators regarding monitoring power output, and extremely rigid
requirements regarding comercial traffic.  All in all, the rules contain
enough restrictions on ``free'' speech in all ways.

It seems natural for people who use various commercial services to excahnge
netnews to draw comparisons between netnews and Amateur Packet Radio networks.
However, carefule reading of my previous sentence points out the crucial
difference: netnews uses *commercial* services (Internet (well, government
sponsored, but *paid* for by many non-government entities), public telephone
network, etc.) to facilitate exchange of *arbitrary* data whereas the Amateur
Packet Radio network uses Amateur Radio frequencies to exchange messages
constrained by the restrictions specified by the FCC (and other nations
participating in world-wide Amateur Radio Services).  The *medium* that the
HAMs use contains inherent restrictions on the allowed content -- most of the
media that netnews uses contains little restrictions on allowed content
(however it still contains restrictions which vary from time to time depending
on how courts interpret the First Ammendment...)

Thanks for your offer of help Peter, but it won't do any good.  The ruling in
the HAM case really involves re-affirmation of long standing restrictions on
the Amateur Radio Service.  HAM operators can gripe about not running their
packet radios in automatic mode any more, but they really can't complain too
much, since they live with these same restrictions when they decide to set up
a repeater and have to provide for more or less constant monitoring of the
repeater output by control operators, much like commercial broadcast stations.

I hope this clarifies some points.

/Joe
N7LYG