PLEASE post only sources to alt.sources

[Ronald S H Khoo]

Jef Poskanzer <jef at well.sf.ca.us> writes:

> How about it?  What if alt.sources was moderated, with the moderators
> address pointing to an auto-replyer that sends back a little blurb?

In order to prevent the rash of complaints similar to those we've
had in alt.hackers, you'd need an *additional* fallback address
which is documented in the blurb.  Just because current Unix systems let you
forge approval doesn't mean that all news systems will necessarily continue
to do so, and some public access systems (like one I used to run :-( )
don't give the user adequate access.

The fallbnack address could either be an auto approval gateway that
checks for source (e.g. to make sure the Subject: like has no Re: and that
the source text contains the string "THIS IS SOURCE, DAMMIT" or something
like that.) or, if you don't trust this approach, to provide a real
human volunteer moderator.  Yes, this means that those who can't forge
get a delay.  I think this is a reasonable compromise.  But I'm not
volunteering to be the moderator.  Mail to the UKNet is far too expensive.

-- 
Ronald Khoo <ronald at robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)