From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 14:06:25 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
In-Reply-To: <199608192034.NAA19771@netcom17.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <w8PXsD49w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[I know the group-advice-lackey-Goebbels-reincarnation-stooge is reading this,
but he probably doesn't have the balls to reply]

mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
> One of the nice things about IRC is that if the Empire State
> Building suddenly blows up, you can tune to #bomb and generally
> find several hundred people interested in discussing it without
> having to go through some complicated newgroup/rmgroup/discussion
> procedure.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to rmgroup a usenet newsgroup once it
gets created. Many sites ignore all rmgroups. In fact, many large sites
now ignore all newgroups unless a user specifically asks to carry a new
newsgroup.

I believe the main reason why most newsadmins seem to want to have some
restrictions on newgrouping is the lack of efficient rmgrouping.

If we could newgroup misc.news.current-events.empire-state-bombing
and then have it disappear quetly and automatically once the non-spam
traffic is gone, I'm sure a lot fewer people would object to its creation.

> The real data base of Usenet is the totality of messages, indexed
> by message ID, and there are so many newsgroups now that allowing
> the Newsgroups: line to have arbitrary contents in the message
> header would do little to increase the confusion. Entering each
> arbitrary entry in the Newsgroups: line into a secondary
> searchable index would provide the same functionality as we have
> now with the conventional arrangement of newsgroups.

Assuming that this is done, why bother with newgroup/rmgroup at all?
If you think comp.language.algol is a worthwhile newsgroup (as I do),
just put it in your header and see if anyone sees your article.
Well-named keywords in Newsgroups: will act as these Snelling(?)
points senile Tim ranted about.

> With governments creating lists of "banned" newsgroups, and an
> official creation process managed by the "Cabal", Usenet is much
> more vulnerable to state control than it would be if newsgroups
> were simply arbitrary strings which existed somewhere in the
> current window into the history file.  A newsgroup would then
> exist if there were messages in it, and wouldn't exist if it had
> remained unused for some reasonable period of time.

The reason for Cabal's existence is twofold. First, it is a bunch
of control freaks who want to be in charge and get a kick out of
telling users "you can't do this". Second, sysadmins are willing
to put up with this shit because they think they need some means
to control newsgrouping.

> Now that search engines are becoming the best way to read Usenet
> anyway, and the Newsgroups: line is just another field in a set
> of search specifications, there is no reasonable reason to limit
> what may be placed there to some list of "20,000" pre-defined
> strings, or some government controlled subset of the above.

Absolutely.

> If Singapore bans alt.sex.hooters, you could simply post to
> alt.culture.singapore.i.got.your.hooters.right.here. This
> would effectly jerk the rug out from under the "banned
> newsgroups" gestapo, and create a namespace so large you would
> always be able to construct an appropriately suggestive new entry
> in the compliment of any part that was blocked.

Yes.

> It would also send the correct message that "newsgroups" are
> simply one of many labels on an article, and are not cyberspacial
> tearooms where bad people congregate and there is guilt by
> association.
>
> The alternative to doing something reasonable like this is
> probably to see mass migration from "banned newsgroups" to
> off-topic groups, like Lolita pictures in rec.pets.cats, when the
> inevitable crackdown comes. As long as people can post
> anonymously, they will simply switch to another existing
> newsgroup when the one they are posting to becomes blocked. Once
> the inevitable reciprocal pissing contest between posters and
> censors gets going, Usenet as we know it will likely be
> destroyed.

Usenet as I knew it 1- years ago has already been destroyed.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps