In article <[log in to unmask]>, Roy Brown
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>In article <[log in to unmask]>,
>Dirickson Steve <[log in to unmask]> writes
(Please excuse the miffy threading and quoting, and hanging this off my
own last post. A kind friend sent me Steve's latest (?) posting, which
apparently never made it off HP3000-L). Can't let it go unanswered
though)
>>Well, as it happens, we *do* receive the List via the comp.sys.hp.mpe
>>newsgroup on Usenet, rather than the HP3000-L mailing list.
>Thanks, though that was obvious from the message headers.
<Snip stuff which shows that Steve knows his stuff too>
>>Anyway, your assumptions about us 'not being equipped' for the 64k
>>download, because we use HP3000-L, are also incorrect. We'd have got
>>64k either way.
>You'll have to refresh my memory, because I don't see where I made any
>assumptions of any kind about your being equipped, or not equipped, to
>do anything. There was a specific complaint from a single individual
[log in to unmask] You might notice the similarity with my Email
address.
>about the size of his mailing-list feed due to the attached binary.
Your incorrect assumption was that he got HP3000-L as mail.
But unsurprisingly, he gets HP3000-L as comp.sys.hp.mpe also.
>>But, leaving aside considerations of being on- or off-topic, you are
>>quite wrong about binaries 'sometimes' being acceptable in newsgroups.
>>By charter, newsgroups are either binary (in which case binaries are
>>*always* welcome) or text-only (in which case they are *never*
>>welcome).
>Again, there is perhaps a difference between the official charter
>policy of newsgroups and the daily reality. As I mentioned, I see
>relatively few complaints in the over-100 newsgroups that I monitor,
>including the over-50 that I read daily. As a *very* rough estimate,
>I'd guess that maybe 4-5% of the articles in the non-binary groups have
>attached binaries, and less than 5% of those result in a follow-up
>complaint posted to the group (though I have to think there are some
>private complaints sent directly to the poster).
Perhaps if there *were* more complaints, there would be less binaries?
In the UK, and in UK groups certainly, there will *always* be public
howls of protest. And quite right too. Unless something is said in the
ng, lurkers and newbies may assume that posting binaries in a text-only
group is an OK practice.
Obviously, a 'first offence', done out of ignorance and a desire to
help, should only merit a gentle chide. As happened here. But better if
everyone is clear that "don't do it" is the rule. The you don't get
knocked back for being helpful.
Our ISP, Demon, would pull our account if we did it and someone
complained to them. Ignorance no excuse (though we'd be allowed back
after making a written apology and an undertaking not to do it again).
Draconian, but it's what is needed if Usenet is not to grind to a halt.
>>Steve, I do realise that you were not the original perpetrator, but I
>>suggest that you get this one straightened out for yourself if you
>>ever think of posting any binaries to Usenet; the response in many
>>text-only newsgroups will be a lot more 'robust' than what has passed
>>here, and might shock even a Navy man!
>Shock? Probably not. Though I am continually amazed and disappointed at
>the freedom with which presumably-normal people will attack their
>fellow man/woman on the 'Net, saying things at the drop of an article
>that I'm sure most of them would never consider saying in a face-to-
>face conversation. I guess it must be the anonymity, though knowing
>that the fellow you're insulting can't reach over and pop you one in
>the nose probably has an effect too. Even in groups as innocuous as the
>misc.forsale hierarchy, periodically we see someone who doesn't like an
>offered price voice his displeasure in the form of a raging vitriolic
>attack against the Offeror-which, as often as not, receives a similar
>response from either the offeror or a third party coming to the
>offeror's "defense". Definitely not a shining example of maturity.
I always assume that I shall later meet anyone I write to or about.
And that any potential 'future employer' will profile me on DejaNews.
BTW, you may have forgotten that an inappropriate binary caused HP3000-L
to come to a grinding halt on 24th June 1998. It took about two days to
sort out :-(
Now the perp had had a dry run on 10th June, to which I raised a gently
chiding reply, from which I quote:
=======================================================================
>[ A MIME application / msword part was included here. ]
>[ original filename, "i came.doc" ]
>
I did not wish to see your finery
This group's for text; you posted binary
=======================================================================
About as much use as a chocolate fireguard, wasn't it?
Even now, I would not want to have been the one to flame him. But I
can't help wondering if *someone* had, whether the 24th would then have
passed without incident.
Steve, in summary, I sure hope nobody reads your posts and says "Well,
this guy seems to know about the 'Net, and he thinks binaries are
something you just have to live with; think I'll see if I can't slip one
or two by".
But what does anybody else think?
--
Roy Brown Phone : (01684) 291710 Fax : (01684) 291712
Affirm Ltd Email : [log in to unmask]
The Great Barn, Mill St 'Have nothing on your systems that you do not
TEWKESBURY GL20 5SB (UK) know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.'
|
