HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: OK to cancel? (was Re: Talking about Beals)
Date: 23 Jul 1992 09:26:50 +0200
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sub.org
Keywords: situational ethics, appropriate cancels, Guido and Luigi

In news.admin, article <2A6D9E58.3DF3@tct.com>,
  chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
< According to red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew):
< 
< >What follows is a series of situations in which a cancel by
< >someone (perhaps only the author), perhaps accompanied by an
< >explanation, may be justified.
< 
< I'm sorry, but I don't think a Talmud-like list of shalls and
< shall-nots will be helpful.  We must deal with situations as they
< arise, so as to allow adequately for extenuating circumstances.
< 
On the other hand, many of those situations have arised in the past, and such
a list may be a good way to get some sort of consensus.

I'm also thinking of a new sysadmin who is confronted with an article from
that list for the first time, and doesn't know what to do. It's easy to
cause even more trouble by doing the wrong thing.

Granted that circumstances are going to be different, but so what? These are
guidelines, not "hard" rules, and can be changed. The same thing happened 
to almost every other guideline out there, and I don't see what's special
about this one.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: fillmore@emr1.emr.ca (Bob Fillmore 992-2832)
Subject: nntpxmit - stuck sending same articles
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:17:14 GMT

We have a problem once in a while where nntpxmit at another site tries
to send us some articles and they are all rejected.  This happens over
and over with exactly the same number of articles rejected each time.
The number of articles is a small fraction of the number in the other
site's outgoing batch for us.  This seems to happen when we have a site
power failure or other cases where we don't respond to the sender regularly.

We have been solving this by asking the other site to delete their outgoing
batch for us, but that means we lose a lot of articles.  Does anyone know
what is causing this, and how to fix it without losing a lot of articles?

Please reply via email (nntp is not reliable!) - I will post a short summary
if I get a good answer.   Thanks!

-- 
Bob Fillmore, Technical Services Division          email: fillmore@emr.ca
  Information Management Branch,                   BIX:   bfillmore      
  Energy, Mines, & Resources Canada                Voice: (613) 992-2832
  580 Booth St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1A 0E4  FAX:   (613) 996-2953    
Xref: sparky news.admin:5983 alt.sources:1736 comp.lang.perl:4843
From: dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:55:11 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

> People who do insist on talking to the press on such issues, by the way,
> should put a lot of caveats in place before using Brian Reid's numbers
> for USENET size.   There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers, and
> we don't really know how accurate they are.  One measurement I did
> a few years ago pegged them as probably 3-5 times too large.  Other
> measurements have given different results.  Nobody can be sure.
> 
> However, if people are doing negative articles about USENET, and any
> article on alt.sex.bondage is 99% likely to be a negative article,
> there is no need to use numbers we don't even know are right to
> pump up the significance of the "problem" for them.
> 
> The only hard number we have is that under 6,000 people have posted
> anonymously or even REPLIED BY MAIL to anonymous postings on
> alt.sex.bondage.  And that should be reduced by those who have been
> re-assigned aliases.   If there are 120,000 readers, than the lurk
> factor of people who have done nothing but read -- no posting, no
> e-mail replies, is huge.
> 
> However, remember that NO STORY which decides to take alt.sex.bondage as
> its focus, even a story that corrects negative impressions from a previous
> story, is going to be a positive story for USENET.   Even if the story
> is balanced -- and the Globe's story was remarkably balanced -- it will
> not send a positive message to most readers.
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366

Also remember that the fact that the word "bondage" is in the name of the 
newsgroup (or bestiality or whatever) sends out a very, VERY negative 
impression to most mainstream people.  They think our practices are weird 
and only for the mentally sick, not anything a stable person would do.  
On the other hand IMHO we all have less qualms about ways to express our 
sexuality, and are more apt to explore different practices.

                                Dean

--If you don't like it, DON'T LOOK!

--
dean@unkaphaed.UUCP (Dean Saxe)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: leary@progress.COM (James Leary)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:40:46 GMT

mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> 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.

Your reply is incredibly ignorant and demeaning and serves no other purpose
except to show us that you seek to obtain the same distinction that
you criticize so rudely here.  Congratulations; you have obtained you goal.

JFL
 
Xref: sparky news.admin:6293 comp.org.eff.talk:4927 misc.legal.computing:1554
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:17:21 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Jul28.041049.16373@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Now, you are using netnews over usenet in an agreement with all sites
>which carry netnews.  The above post is one of several which define
>how that agreement works.  Copyright law aside, part of your agreement

But *is* it?  It's just an article posted by someone who's been around
usenet a long time.  Since you keep saying usenet has no legal identity,
that posting has no special legal force.  *I* could put up a completely
contradictory posting of what *I* think usenet is, and someone could
post their articles and cite my posting as 'authority'...

G
Xref: sparky news.admin:6408 comp.org.eff.talk:5042 misc.legal.computing:1647 misc.legal:15213
From: fsars@acad2.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:48:38 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <1992Jul30.193033.20015@wolves.uucp>, news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
> 	I have a fantasy that someday, somewhere, someone being tried
> for some obscure violation of some massive law, will drag into court all
> the paper that embodies the law in question (like maybe the two or three
> tons of paper that would constitute the entire Internal Revenue Code)
> and argue that it was "impossible" to know the law given the sheer mass
> of its encoding.  Would "ignorance of the law" become a valid defense in
> such a case?

I think it should.  It's no longer practical for the onus of knowing
all the laws out there to be on the private citizen.

However, we aren't talking about ignorence of the law when speaking
of copyright violations, but ignorence of someone violating a law.

So the question comes down to, is a sysop responsible for the actions
of other people on his machine?  That's where things get kind of
vague.  For example the library on this campus has copying machines
available for people to use (about 7 cents/page).  It's not unusual
for campuses to provide this service.  Apparently the library is not
liable if you use that copying machine to copy copyright articles or
even textbooks (as some have been known to do).
                    === Al Sparks
From: DICKINSO@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: test
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:37:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: wsuvm1.1682BCD96.DICKINSO
Organization: SYSTEMS & COMPUTING

This is a test
Xref: sparky news.admin:6314 alt.censorship:6423 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2432
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:16:31 GMT
Organization: Aston University

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
: > I wonder, in fact how anyone who wants to render writing, pictures or
: > whatever about sex can possibly be older that about 13 themselves.
: 
: I wonder how anyone over the age of about 13 could want to look at pictures of
: people playing football, but millions do.

You have taken what I said out of context.
The point was that anyone older than about 13 cannot be the product of an
IVF program, therefor their parents must have had sex.
Thus the potential censor is a product of the activity they wish to be hidden.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Copyrights on netnews articles
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:05:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.081204.18538@ee.und.ac.za> barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>In the free areas the expectation is wide and uncontrolled distribution
>of verbatim copies.  If it's a verbatim copy (including the headers)
>then it's part of Usenet; regardless of the medium, which might be disk,
>satellite, CD-ROM, tape, punched cards, newspapers, posters in public

We can only list that as an expectation if there is no copyright licence
on the material.   You can only argue an implicit copyright licence
where there isn't an explicit copyright licence, or in some very limited
and particular cases.

If you copy something with an explicit licence forbidding you from doing
so, the best you can argue is that you didn't know the licence was
there.   If you're just running a USENET feed or dumping a wad of stuff
to tape, you can make a case that you didn't know what was in each
article.

As far as I know, once you know the licence is there, you must obey
it.   I don't know whether you can also be compelled to make efforts to
undo the innocent copying you did do.

This is not, in my belief, something we get a choice about.  It is simply
the facts.  The default in copyright law is that you can't copy without
the clear permission of the copyright holder.   You can argue that the
absence of a licence on a usenet posting is equivalent to that permission,
and you might have a case.   I see no way you can argue that the presence
of an explicit statement to the contrary is compatible with permission.

There have been some cases where copying has been allowed -- notably to
do things like timeshift a TV program or archive software you own.
Specific (USA) caselaw has established a precedent that they can't forbid this
in their licence.  But remember that these are very specific and limited
cases.   I doubt you will ever see a declaration of permission for
unlimited copying.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:27:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.175643.15218@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.221517.8106@phlpa.pha.pa.us> scott@phlpa.pha.pa.us (Scott Scheingold) writes:
>>Here we go. More censorship. This gets to be insane after a while....
>> I agree with the point of not letting children see or read
>>alt.sex.*...
>
>     Why?  Isn't that Censorship too?  Don't children have
>Absolute Freedom of Speech too?  Gee, I guess everyone has a
>point where they draw the line, eh.
	Of course children don't have "Absolute Freedom of Speech".  Who ever
said they did?  Where have you seen anyone here claim that the Bill of Rights
applies to minor children in exactly the same way as it does to adults?
	Looks like another rhetorical straw man to me.

>
>> Correct me if I am wrong but I do belive
>>that those who attend universities are of legal age.
>
>     There's a very bright kid at my university who is about 13
>or 14, and who I believe has computer access.  Based on your
>comment above, I guess it's a good thing that they cut off
>alt.sex.* to undergrads.
>
	It's a debatable point.  Obviously *some* of the students at any
university are under 21 and a very small number *might* be under 18, so if
you really think a university should act "in loco parentis" I suppose an
argument could be made for it.  Whether the (largely theoretical) harm in
allowing the possibility of under-21 access to the alt.sex.* hierarchy
justifies he time and effort necessary to accomplish this is another question.


>>... If one does not like it don't read it or look at it. Just like TV if
>>you don't like the  content don't watch it. turn it off or change the channel
>...
>
>     Blah blah blah.  Now it's such a mantra that no one even
>has to propose censorship, people just recite it whenever
>anything slightly challenging to their ideas comes up.
>
	Eh?  Are you implying that people *can't* elect not to read or view
material they find offensive?  Or are you just one of those who proposes
censoring anything slightly challenging to his own ideas?

>--Jamie.                       ,
>  jamie@cs.sfu.ca           (-:=
>"Cool... clear... Usenet"      `   (not)

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: news.admin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 17:50:46 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: hiding sex info from minors (was: "Computers graphic when it comes...)
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<1992Jul26.064847.8698@phlpa.pha.pa.us>
	<1992Jul28.170513.22110@seanews.akita.com>

billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:

> On the other hand, why shouldn't existing child porn be in
> libaries?  Why is the mere possession of pictures (merely
> an arrangement of colored dies) a crime?

   By making the posession a crime, it make it more difficult to make
and distribute the stuff. The idea is that by removing the customer
base, the producers will not make as much profit, and may find some
other hobby.
   Whether this is at all effective is another matter.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: This newsgroup
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:48:39 GMT

Perhaps "news.admin.issues" is in order. I have a LOT of news to read daily
and unlike some people I have other things to do. 90% or more of what is
posted to this group is useless information to 90% of the people reading this
group. I don't like to kill threads totally because occasionally something
relevant will be said.. but this is definatly the exception rather than the
rule..

Reorganize news.admin. This group should be one where you can read it and find
only important facts relating to the administration of a news system. Not the
conversations that have been going on, mainly between just a few people, on
political, nit-picking, semantic, or other issues. It should be short and
concise and to the point. It's not.
From: jerry@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: nntpxmit - stuck sending same articles
Summary: B news rejects "local" causing requeue
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:52:25 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino CA, USA

In article <1992Jul22.151714.7797@emr1.emr.ca> fillmore@emr1.emr.ca (Bob Fillmore 992-2832) writes:
>We have a problem once in a while where nntpxmit at another site tries
>to send us some articles and they are all rejected.  This happens over
>and over with exactly the same number of articles rejected each time.

I had this happen once.  The feeding site was running INN and I run B news.
They were "leaking" some articles with distribution "local".  B news
objects strongly to receiving "local" articles from another site and INN
wasn't to happy about the status returned on those articles.  Presumably
it thought that the tranfer had failed and so the articles should be
requeued.

My work around was to install the msgid daemon.  It saw the message IDs
of the failed articles the first time and on the second attempt it
rejected them as duplicates even though they had never actually been
saved.

You might also ask your feed to not send you the distribution of "local".
Isn't /all wonderful.... NOT!
From: idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:20:08 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul21.010753.8114@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall) writes:
>
>>The copyright looks valid. The question is what does "All rights
>>except usenet transmission... reserved" mean? There is no legal entity
>>called usenet. 
>
>He could have also said "all rights except phone transmission..." and
>there is no legal entity called phone, but you understand it anyway.

I think I have a lot clearer idea of what a phone is (though there are
certainly grey areas) than what usenet is!

However, this raises an interesting point. What would be the consequences
of such a "all rights except phone transmission..." mean?
If I add such a notice and then post the article into a machine which
does transmission by phone have I violated the notice? Well I suppose
I can't be sued for violating the conditions on my own article.

What if I post to use net which *may* involve transmission by phone?
Well, if I *knew* that it may involve transmission by phone then I
think I have consented to the copying inspite of the notice.  I think
if I post an article to a machine which I *know* may involve
transmission by as many diverse means as usenet, then I have consented
to to all those means of copying.

There has been much discussion about whether it is the poster which
makes the copy or the owner of the equipment. I think a lot depends
on whether I knew about the outcome of my action.

If I put a document in a photocopier and press the copy button and get
my copy, then I have made the copy. If I stick it in a copying machine
and it gives me my copy, but also makes extra copies which are
automatically sent to others, then I don't think I can reasonably have
been said to have made the extra copies.

Consider a performer renting sound equipment for a live performance.
The performer uses the equipment and there is no breach of copyright.
Now what if the equipment is connected to a radio transmitter so that
the performer is giving a live broadcast as well? No problem if the
performer knew. There is a problem if the performer didn't know.
Technically, I think it is "knew and assented" but there is a pretty
reasonable case that if you "knew" and proceeded without being coerced
then you "knew and assented".

Of course, if to cover your arse (ass for Americans, though why you
would want to cover an animal beats me) you would want it it writing.

-- 
 Ian Dall           life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts
                              some people more severely than others.
   ACSnet: idall@augean.oz
 Internet: idall@augean.oz.au
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: This newsgroup
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:37:53 GMT

vid@zooid.guild.org (David Mason) writes:
>Perhaps "news.admin.issues" is in order. I have a LOT of news to read daily
>and unlike some people I have other things to do. 90% or more of what is
>posted to this group is useless information to 90% of the people reading this
>group. I don't like to kill threads totally because occasionally something
>relevant will be said.. but this is definatly the exception rather than the
>rule..

Then unsubscribe, no one is forcing you to read this group.  You don't have
to read every article here.  (Unlike some other network's admin conference...)

>Reorganize news.admin. This group should be one where you can read it and find
>only important facts relating to the administration of a news system.

Important facts?  I think everyone posting here thinks what they have to
say is important.

>Not the conversations that have been going on, mainly between just a few
>people, on political, nit-picking, semantic, or other issues. It should
>be short and concise and to the point. It's not.  

Dream on, no Usenet group will never be concise and to the point.  This is
an open forum, anybody can and will say what they want, not just what you
think is "important".

								Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Xref: sparky news.admin:6440 comp.org.eff.talk:5066 misc.legal.computing:1668