Re: warning to "sci" anonymous posters

[Al Billings <mimir@u.washington.edu>]

 This is another message on the Cancel Message Generator issue in
news.admin.policy.

In article <C3tzrs.5t5@redpoll.neoucom.edu> Richard Depew
<red@redpoll.neoucom.edu writes:
>     As I promised yesterday, I emailed each recent anonomous poster
>in the "sci" hierarchy a note explaining what may happen this
>weekend.  
>
>Dick
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dear anonymous poster,
>
>     You may not be aware of the discussion in news.admin.policy
>concerning the propriety of posting anonymously to newsgroups which
>have not invited such postings.  As someone who has posted anonymously
>to the "sci" hierarchy recently, you should read it.
>
>     I am writing to inform you that if Julf, admin@anon.penet.fi,
>does not soon block anonymous postings to the "sci" hierarchy, then
>I will activate an "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script
>that will cancel postings to this hierarchy from his server.  This is
>intended to restore the pre-Julf status quo, at least temporarily,
>over the weekend.
>
>     Rest assured that there is nothing personal in this.  I have not
>read your postings, and I have no reason to believe that they were out
>of line in any way other than being anonymous.  I have nothing against
>anonymous postings to groups that have decided to accept such
>postings, nor do I object to any newsgroup deciding to do this.  I
>*do* object to Julf's permitting his server to post to newsgroups
>without any effort to determine whether the readers of those newsgroups
>want to permit anonymous postings.
>
>     You have several possible courses of action if you wish to post
>to the "sci" hierarchy while the "Automated Retroactive Minimal
>Moderation" is in effect:
>
>*1  convince Julf to accept the "Petersen Proposal" for default
>    settings for different hierarchies.  I promise to turn off the
>    ARMM script as soon as I hear that he will do this (or anything
>    reasonably responsive).
>
>*2  convince the readers of the newsgroup to which you want to post
>    that anonymous postings should be accepted in that newsgroup.
>    I can think of several valid reasons that may prompt such a desire,
>    but the decision should be made by the readers of the newsgroup, not
>    imposed by a single person such as Julf, or me.  I promise to
>    abide by whatever decision the newsgroup makes.  This does not
>    need to be a formal vote.  A straw vote with a clear majority will
>    suffice.
>
>*3  have a friend post for you, use a different anonymous server,
>    or, if all else fails, post under your own name.  People used to
>    do this, you know.  :-)
>
>    If none of these suit you, then simply be patient, and wait until
>Monday.  I intend to run ARMM, if I run it at all, for less than 48
>hours... this time.  This is merely intended to be a demonstration
>that an effective enforcement mechanism for blocking postings from a
>particular site can work.
>
>    I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
>My argument is with Julf and is about the default setting for entire
>hierarchies; it is not with you or your particular postings.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dick Depew
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>-- 
>Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH               red@redpoll.neoucom.edu
>"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer
>                                         and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3