HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b,news.software.readers
Subject: Re: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software
Date: 16 Aug 1992 17:34:33 +0200
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

In news.software.b, article <Bt03t1.FrF@rivm.nl>,
  a3@rivm.nl (Adri Verhoef) writes:
> What about storing the FAQ for a certain newsgroup in article 0 ?
> 
> This would probably mean a new headerline or rather a new Control:
> command, say "Control: faq name.of.the.newsgroup".  This would
> replace file "0" in the designated newsgroup by the new article.
> 
> Newsreaders would not notice article 0, but when the supposedly
> Newsgroup-info command would be issued, article 0 would be retrieved
> by the newsreader.
> 
Good idea except that some newsgroups have more than one FAQ file, or one
that's too big.
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.

-- 
"I can give you a sentence with the word punctilious.  There's
 a farmer with two daughters, Lizzie and Tillie.  Lizzie is 
 all right, but you have no idea how punctilious."
-- Another member of the Algonquin Round Table
-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:54:46 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <CJHIPZ8@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|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.

>>Hitler's did.

>No, his *actions* did.

Then how did he get into a position where he could act?
-- 
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: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:43:02 GMT
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <248@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

>You are right.  That is what JJ himself has said.  And the law
>*in the absence of additional restrictions* would allow such usage.
Huh?  The law allows fair use.  Period.

>However what JJ's copyright notice requires is COMPLETE copies,
>no more, no less.
Fair use applies.
Always.
Despite what ASCAP and BMI would like us to believe.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like 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,soc.culture.arabic,misc.test,alt.moslem.wanted.gay,talk.bizarre
From: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:44:32 GMT

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



Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorshp
From: kadie@dante.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, 19 Aug 1992 20:18:19 GMT

[A reply to an article in news.admin]

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

[...]
>Canada has the very same types of laws, plus constitutional guarantees
>of free speech too.  One difference being that the balancing act is
>explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

Agreed.

>The other more critical difference is the level of harm necessary.
>Canada chose the route of "reasonable person", juries, studies, and
>simply watching the USA - a case study in almost unrestricted free
>speech.
[...]

Put another way, Canada inherented from Great Britain the idea that if
a majority of the legislature says that some class of material is bad
and should be banned, then they are assumed to be correct. 

In other words, the legislature can ban anything.

I certainly would not trust the Illinois or U.S. government with that
authority. (Personally, I wouldn't trust any government with that
authority.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:29:58 GMT

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

> 	$ grep junk /usr/lib/news/active
> 	junk 0000000000 000001 x
>
> Bingo!  No more "dreck".  [Except for the complaints in the log file.]

I'd rather have the dreck in the news spool rather than the logfile - then
at least I can tell when there are real problems.  Besides, with this,
articles in legitimate groups that you're slow in creating just get
discarded.  They don't even get passed to your downstream feeds.  (And
while I'm perfectly happy throwing away groups locally, I'd like to be sure
my downstream feeds get everything they asked for).

> >						     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;

That's because you're using a *stupid* newsreader.  Switch to something
that doesn't consider it a red-alert emergency when a group is created or
deleted.

> 	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.

A legitimate group which isn't created because the admin is on vacation is
more serious than getting than a silly group that you didn't want to see.
The supported newsreader here is nn - if any readers are frustrated with
the waste of their livespan spent typing "Uy" in response to stupid groups,
they can just put "set new-group-action 0" in their init files.  I don't
know any that's actually gone to the trouble.  I'm certainly not going to
throw away part of their feed to save them the trouble of ignoring it.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
Xref: sparky news.admin:7127 comp.org.eff.talk:5437 misc.legal.computing:1972
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:22:37 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

leary@progress.COM (James Leary) writes:
> 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?
> 
> It is called implied consent, Mathew.  An individual would have to be
> incredibly naive to assume that a post can be selectively sent to sites
> of their choosing; it is not how the net works.

That's not the question.  I don't care which *machines* my article ends up on
by my commanding that they copy it.  I care about which *people* are allowed
to copy it once it has arrived there.

> both ways.  The net is not the place to post messages and articles that
> an individual considers a valuable intellectual property and therefore
> wishes to place conditions upon its use and duplication.

More's the pity.  Oh, and tell that to shareware and GNUware authors.


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

From: Alexandros.Gougousoudis@f41.n2403.z2.fidonet.org (Alexandros Gougousoudis)
Sender: postmaster@p2.f41.n2403.z2.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Computer graphics and child pornography
Date: 16 Aug 92  16:40:00 EST

 > From: mtalbot@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David Bowman)
 > Newsgroups: news.admin


        ??? WHAT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ???
    If anyone can come up with reasonable definitions for both

Hi David,

well I thought about a definition...

A child is every human below 14 years of age (after german law)
A Minor is every human below 18 years of age (      "         )

I am sure, that the UNO has very similar defenitions, when you don't
accept the german defenitions.

...Pornography is the biased showing of sexual practice, with the intention
of the sexual aspects... (free translation of a German Encyclopaedia)
Childs are not allowed to have sexual intercourse anyway.

So Child-Pornography is the showing a children having sex, or showing a
definite an plain sexual pose.
Think you understand what I mean, otherwise let me know.

(greek: pornographos, means a 'Hooker-Description'..:-) )

In most countries (Germany included) Pornography with childs is forbidden.
In some countries, a nude girl is pronography
People which support Child-pornography (even when they post pictures
it into a MailNet) should be shot.


cu and greetings from Berlin

  Alex

P.S: Sorry, but my english is trained for scientific things. I copied most words from dictionary, but I hope the message got through.

---
 * Origin: Krypta.UUCP,UseNet-Berlin,FRG.FReq: 8:00-13:00h AM! (2:2403/41)
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:02:06 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <244@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <A39I74@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <237@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>>Archives & FTP fall w/in the "USENET",

>>I'm not convinced of that. Some do (for example, archives of comp.sources,
>>or other complete groups). Most archive sites do a lot of selection, either
>>by the administration or submitters, and wouldn't be considered part of
>>Usenet.

>I usually make a distinction between the term "USENET" and the more
>specific term "USENET News".  The "USENET News" is the interactive reading
>reply message system that sometimes is not interactive and some people
>cannot reply to <g>.  The "USENET" is just about any from of allowable
>data transfer between systems that participate in the USENET.  These
>include FTP.

They do? You mean I can do ftp from here? Hold on...

+ ftp ftp.uu.net
/bin/sh: ftp: not found

Damn. Maybe my TCP/IP software isn't configured right? (rummage, rummage)
well... whaddaya know... it's not even installed. Guess I'm not on Usenet.

What you're talking about is called "The Internet". The Internet is not
Usenet, and while it's become traditional among reporters to confuse
Usenet with the Internet I think you're the first case I've run into of
the opposite problem.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: leary@progress.COM (James Leary)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:31:36 GMT

jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon and clueless white boy) writes:


>..All the uninformed blathering
>on implied consent ignores the fact posting to USENET does not
>imply any non-typical use...

The only uninformed blathering I see out here comes from you, my friend.

Jim Leary

-- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kyle Tucker - Email Administrator  | 		Progress Software Corporation
tucker@bedford.progress.com 	   |		14 Oak Park
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
	<3738@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> <CJHIPZ8@taronga.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:09:09 GMT

In article <CJHIPZ8@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

   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.

Of course.  When people suggest limiting the contents of sexually
explicit magazines or pictures, then the cry is "you can't limit
freedom of *expression*".

But when you try to talk about the people that have been harmed by
some of the producers or the purveyors of these publications, then
you're back to defending "speech".  Are you going to say that no one
has ever died in the production of hard-core pornography, (including
snuff films)?

How about a quote from Justice Warren Burger:

   "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and
 political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene
 material demeans the grand conception of the First
 Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle
 for freedom.  The protection given speech and press was
 fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for
 the bringing about of political and social changes
 desired by the people.  But the public portrayal of
 hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the
 ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter."

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Offensive Newsgroup
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:10:33 GMT
	<1992Aug12.215348.13818@daimi.aau.dk>
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University


>>>>> "Jesper" == Jesper Lauridsen (rorschak@daimi.aau.dk)

Jesper> If you want control then stick to the mainstream groups. Alt
Jesper> would be utterly pointless if we introduced some voting or
Jesper> other formal procedure to decide on creation.

Actually, it would just lead to the creation of a real-alt hierarchy.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
From: Christophe.Wolfhugel@univ-lyon1.fr (Christophe Wolfhugel)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b,news.software.readers
Subject: Re: "Newsgroup-info" command for news software
Date: 16 Aug 1992 20:19:14 +0200
Organization: INSA Informatique, Lyon, France
NNTP-Posting-Host: grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr

In article <Bt03t1.FrF@rivm.nl> a3@rivm.nl (Adri Verhoef) writes:
>What about storing the FAQ for a certain newsgroup in article 0 ?

Not all news system use numbering, so forcing an article # would
limit choice to the implementors.

-- 
Christophe Wolfhugel    |    Email: Christophe.Wolfhugel@univ-lyon1.fr
   "No keyboard, press F1 to continue"
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:07:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.114520.17529@druid.uucp> darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>And on Saturday night the words you use come around to be paid?  FTP is
>not Usenet and the fact that a Usenet site has an archive doesn't make
>it a Usenet archive even if it is an archive of Usenet.

You know, as I was busy writing some code to automate even more of the
archives I am keeping, it became painfully clear that there is no real
difference between an archive and how many other USENET sites operate.
This revelation came as I was pondering how to implement cancels and
supercedes, after having created a history mechanism. 

The only difference between an archive and other news systems is that
the maintainer of the archive has set his expire time to <real long>.
There is nothing in the rules that says that a USENET site ceases to be
a USENET site if it sets its expire time longer than a certain value.
There is nothing in the rules that says a USENET site ceases to be a 
USENET site just because people have access to non-traditional
newsreaders.

--
stanley@skyking.oce.orst.edu
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rmgroup/newgroup policies (Was: Re: Offensive Newsgroup)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:50:53 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BswI0v.Epn@ernest.dseg.ti.com> alan@ernest.dseg.ti.com (Alan Edmonds) writes:
>...My solution is the NEWSCTL/newgroupperm file.
>It suppossedly will work with earlier releases of cnews.

Well, this stuff *is* new with the Performance Release (and is not well
documented even there), but the P.R. version of newgroup ought to work
with an older C News, if you want to mix and match.  It's got a problem
or two, most notably that it should recognize no-ops (messages that ask
for, e.g., a change of moderation status that has already been done) and
discard them.  A fancier version, now in the works, will fix this.

It *is* very useful.  We'd talked about it for some time, but I finally
did it because I got fed up with the latest alt.silliness myself.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:44:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship 

As quoted from <z=5my6g.barry@netcom.com> by barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry):

> 	I suspect I know how porn affects people: it makes some bad
> people worse, some good people better, and most people it don't have
> much effect on at all :-). That's how most things seem to work, after
> all. The Bible probably helped turned a man that was good to begin with
> into St. Francis of Assisi, but it also likely helped turn Torquemada
> (whom I suspect was a _rotten_ kid :-) into the Grand Inquisitor.

An EXCELLENT point.  If we can have a Pornography Victims Compensation Act, 
there's no constitutional reason why we can't have a Religious Doctrine Victims
Compensation Act.  Anybody who claims that a LOT more people HAVEN'T died 
under hideous circumstances, because of religion, is being diplomatically 
speaking, "differently honest"....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Subject: News feed wanted in upstate South Carolina
Reply-To: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Organization: Technical Support & Magic
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:08:40 GMT


Our current access to USENET is slated to be terminated next week,
so we're looking for a new feed. We're located in Greenville, SC.

It's unlikely that the addresses in the header of this message will
continue to be viable, so the best way to contact me would be
via phone:

	Bluejay Adametz
	(803)675-7425

We do not (will not have) have any Internet access, so probably some 
sort of UUCP would be in order. I'm a novice at this, so make me an
offer!

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

					- Bluejay Adametz
					  Currently Digital Equipment Corp,
					  Becoming AMP-Akzo Co.
From: zen@hophead (Nick Zentena)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Commerical use of the net?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:54:58 EDT
Reply-To: zen%hophead@canrem.com (Nick Zentena)
Organization: The Hop Head Saloon

Hi,
        could someone forward me any information on
        commerical use of the net? My understanding is this
        is VERY Very bad. Or is it just me?
        Thanks
        Nick

*****************************************************************************
I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles!
zen%hophead@canrem.com
*****************************************************************************
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: "By Command of the Poster" considerd harmful (Was: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 15 Aug 92 12:22:09 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <246@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) wrote:
> Seems like the person who created the script would be liable.
> The magazine editor took it on good faith -- he obtained the
> article from a submissions address.  There is nothing in the
> method of distribution mechanism of USENET that would imply
> to the poster that his article would be submitted for publication.

The problem with this is that it breaks the "by command of the poster"
vision of the net. Once you admit that one such automated thing isn't
part of the net, then any of them become open to question, including
things that are no more than new ways shipping netnews around.

> The person who did the submission (by arranging for that script
> in the first place) would be the one liable, IMHO.

There's the break. If you believe "by command of the poster", then the
poster did the submission, not the person who set up the script.

In mail, brad pointed out that it was "the last human" who should be
liable. In this case, that's clearly the accepting editor at the
publication.

	<mike