Likes: 
In article <Lhj9b.306841$lA6.9165985@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> [ .. ]
>> Nobody owns it, but people do make sure it doesn't turn into a
>> wasteland. Like volunteers for the neighbourhood playground.
>> If certain kids make a mess, they can and should be denied access,
>> and their parents should be informed of their misconduct.
> Yes, but only *those* kids and only *their* parents. More below.
hint:
long int MAXKIDS;
>> [ ... ]
>> You lost me there.
> A cancel is intended to remove something from *someone else*'s server.
No, to remove it from usenet. To stop it propagating it also has to be removed.
>>> 1) Not all admins *can* disregard (these) cancels (because
>>> not all News server software has that functionality).
>> Then that's a limitation they willfully chose, or (were forced
>> to) accept(ed) upon implementation.
> Not neccessarily. For example, less than five years ago (and
> maybe even less), INN did not offer this functionality.
Then the question is raised, why did the method of canceling
survive ? Because the benefits outweight the drawbacks...
>> I buy my toaster with a timer,
>> so I don't burn my toast. But I could also buy one where I'd have
>> to turn the slices by hand. I know my toast can burn, I know there
>> are different "implementations" of the toaster concept. I chose
>> to prevent the smoke alarm from deafening me.
> We are not talking about the choices you have or/and you make. We are
> talking about the things which you (can not) force on others.
When I buy bread, only the small "Casino" style fits in my "it doesn't
burn" toaster, but my fire-alarm-tester takes larger slices.
Reading your analogy/reasoning, I'm having a hard time figuring
out why I'm not picketing at the local supermarket...
>>> 2) Not all admins will be notified about this UDP, so
>>> again they *can not* disregards these cancels.
>> Running a server entails keaping abreast with information that
>> might have an impact on that server. If one choses not to read
>> up certain established usenet groups, then there is no basis to
>> become picky about what informations flows through a server.
> Again: Your *opinion*. Not something which you have the right
> to force on others.
It's a universal concept amongst sysadmins, and can be found in
almost any ISP AUP. And if you don't agree with the rules we
(tinw) as a community have created, then just disconnect.
We're trying to keep something from turning into sh$t.
>>> 3) Not all 'admins' (know how to) 'properly' manage their
>>> servers and they should not be forced to (i.e. Usenet is
>>> not limited to just commercially/professionally-run servers).
>> Then why be a part of usenet at all !?
> Why not? You yourself said "*my* servers, *my* rules", but now you are
> trying to force your rules onto others. You can't have your cake and eat
> it too.
Uhm, did you had too much to drink ?
"My Server, My Rules" doesn't expand into "I've
got a newsfeed, Everybody do the Funky Chicken!"
If people don't like the overall policies and rules, they're free
to disregard them, as long as they don't become bothersome to others.
>> Ignorance is *not* an excuse.
> If it isn't an excuse, then it goes both ways, i.e. also you can not
> claim ignorance on what cancels (might/can) do.
They remove messages. They might be a bit overkill, especially
with an UDP. But not cancelling or considering an UDP and thus
putting up with all the junk is much less desirable.
>>> [ ... active/passive UDP ... ]
>> I wouldn't mind having it go for the entire usenet hierarchy.
>> 95% of the abuse has been directed to nl.*. But what prohibits
>> the purpetraitors to shift to another hierarchy ? If you're drivers
>> license is revoked it's revoked completely, not just for .nl.
> Yes, but you are not just revoking the drivers licenses of the
> purpetraitors, but also of innocent bystanders. *That* is what I am
> referring to all this time.
Nope I'm revoking all licenses which were approved by a certain
examinator. He has been found to not have done his job right.
Regards,
JP Velders
Quote
