How to avoid the spam on this news group?
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: How to implement a http(apache)-access-only system
Next: pthread_cond_wait segmentation fault Options
From: Rainer Weikusat on 11 Nov 2009 08:30 David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes: > On Nov 10, 9:12�pm, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-s...(a)benfinney.id.au> > wrote: > >> The same choice, with the same options, seems to apply to HTTP. Why is >> the decision different? > > Not at all, for many reasons. The two most obvious are: > > 1) HTTP is not broadcast. To maybe make this clearer: The web is a distributed hypermedia system, IOW, any particular content is usually accessible by using a particular server or particular, small set of servers and USENET is a distributed content-replication system, which means that (in theory) each participating server actually has local copies of all 'contents'.
From: Golden California Girls on 11 Nov 2009 12:53 Ben Finney wrote: > Golden California Girls <gldncagrls(a)aol.com.mil> writes: > >> Ben Finney wrote: >>> (my ISP provides Usenet service over NNTP — pressure yours to do the >>> same). >> Mine officially got told drop it or go to jail. > > Told by whom? Whose business is it to tell an ISP to drop NNTP support? Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, in his official capacity.
From: David Schwartz on 11 Nov 2009 15:15 On Nov 11, 5:30 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > > 1) HTTP is not broadcast. > To maybe make this clearer: The web is a distributed hypermedia > system, IOW, any particular content is usually accessible by > using a particular server or particular, small set of servers and > USENET is a distributed content-replication system, which means that > (in theory) each participating server actually has local copies of all > 'contents'. Exactly. USENET is a like a bookstore, HTTP is like FedEx. A bookstore cannot sell child pornography without major legal problems. FedEx can ship child pornography without major legal problems. The difference is the right and ability to screen and filter contents. DS
From: Rainer Weikusat on 12 Nov 2009 07:32 David Schwartz <davids(a)webmaster.com> writes: > On Nov 11, 5:30�am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > >> > 1) HTTP is not broadcast. > >> To maybe make this clearer: The web is a distributed hypermedia >> system, IOW, any particular content is usually accessible by >> using a particular server or particular, small set of servers and >> USENET is a distributed content-replication system, which means that >> (in theory) each participating server actually has local copies of all >> 'contents'. > > Exactly. USENET is a like a bookstore, HTTP is like FedEx. A bookstore > cannot sell child pornography without major legal problems. FedEx can > ship child pornography without major legal problems. USENET is rather like FedEx than like a bookstore: It delivers the content of files to subscribers using some distribution infrastructure and server operators neither know what the content of those files happen to be (in the general case), while a bookstore owner does know what he is or isn't selling, nor do they actively engage in obtaining particular files which are supposed to be of commercial value because of their content, but actually just 'sell' access to the distribution infrastructure. This was an idea I actually had on my way to work today: Why isn't 'AC Cuomo', supposedly some official with political ambitions and a desire to make an impression on the general public without spending money, invading post offices, threatening to jail everyone working there, since the similarities are so striking? And my somewhat cynic answer to this rethorical question would be: Because he isn't allowed to unconditionally screen other people's mail while he is allowed to and capable of searching, even in an automated way, the files currently residing on a NNTP-server. 'Gelegenheit macht Diebe', as the German proverb says.
From: David Schwartz on 12 Nov 2009 12:37
On Nov 12, 4:32 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > This was an idea I actually had on my way to work today: Why isn't 'AC > Cuomo', supposedly some official with political ambitions and a desire > to make an impression on the general public without spending money, > invading post offices, threatening to jail everyone working there, > since the similarities are so striking? The packages are sealed. The content is not exposed to the postal employee. HTTP content is not exposed to the ISP (although, under current law, the packet headers are because the ISP is supposed to use them). USENET content is. > And my somewhat cynic answer > to this rethorical question would be: Because he isn't allowed to > unconditionally screen other people's mail while he is allowed to and > capable of searching, even in an automated way, the files currently > residing on a NNTP-server. Exactly. The legal obligation to filter for law violations flows from the right and ability to access and control content. There's quite a bit of legal precedent involving how you make these kinds of decisions, and most of the precedent is reasonable. (For example, is a flea market operator liable for pirated CDs sold at his flea market? Is a landlord liable for a tenant who makes drugs? And so on.) DS |