requests


Chuq Von Rospach (chuq%plaid@SUN.COM)
Tue, 15 Apr 86 11:27:59 PST


>> Message-ID: <12198824179.25.JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

>> ...we should punish the offendors so horribly that word of what
>> happens to you when you do this will become instant network folklore.
>> I used to send such pinheads a few megabytes of mail manually, but
>> maybe a tool that sends them 253 copies of SF-LOVERS every hour for
>> three weeks is the right thing.

What is the purpose of flaming to death a person WHO DOESN'T KNOW BETTER?
I'm not saying that the protocols, procedures and folklore of the net (whether
ARPA or USENET) are arcane or confusing -- especially to those who have
learned the ropes. Remember, you were a novice once, yourself.

Flaming someone for screwing up doesn't solve the problem. Information solves
the problem. In all my time working with USENET, only rarely did I see
a person or account repeat a mistake. Reacting to a misplaced message like
it was a personal affront only causes the new users (new blood and ideas
we can ALWAYS use to keep the groups fresh) the withdraw and decide we're
all a bunch of idiots (or worse). The over-reaction is MUCH worse than
the crime.

> Each netmailer need make such mistakes only once or twice if, in reply,
> they received a canned tutorial on the constituate parts of netdom,
> pathnames, list-of-lists, requests, etc., etc. I've not seen such a
> summary available for distribution, but I'd sure like to see one.

Good information is key. A couple of years back (was it that long ago,
already?) I rewrote the etiquette doc for USENET. Perhaps what we need
is something similar for ARPA lists, so that when someone does screw up
we have a concise and non-flaming resource to help them keep from screwing
up twice.

chuq



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:06 GMT