[Coco] Re: Thanks for the Princeton Bit.Listserv.CoCo Mail List. DRAFT

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Hi,

jimcox-pSsjvYtiqdnQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:19:06 -0800
>   "Stephen H. Fischer"
> <SFischer1-RkSGfkmD84MysxA8WJXlww at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> jimcox-pSsjvYtiqdnQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org wrote:
>>> Why are you so eager to kill the Princeton list?
>>
>> The list already has been killed. The vote was taken by
>> the move of the list.
>
> While I do remember moving to this list, due to a single
> person taking it upon themselves to infect the Princeton
> list with spam so as to force the move, I didn't consider
> it a vote to kill the list.  It was a personal choice made
> by me to take advantage of Dennis' hospitality and
> actually focus more on the CoCo than constant ranting
> about spam.

Another vote can be taken if you wish. I do not know what the outcome of the
vote might be.

I can hold my fire, but we will continue to be powerless against anyone who
may just tell the truth to Princeton about our spam filled list there. That
single person has already suggested that he might send a lie about the list
to Princeton. That lie would get the attention of Princeton for sure. It got
my attention when I discovered the message in part of a log file that had
been marked gone but the words were still in the file residue.

With the SPAM flooding the list and few if any posts about the CoCo made,
the truth will cause the list to be closed by Princeton.

How many people wish to move back, make posts that may allow their e-mail
address to be collected, ignore the SPAM and be always aware the list could
be closed quickly at any time. I can be counted in the yes column as I have
developed methods of handling the SPAM with out much effort on my part.

Can B.L.CoCo be cleaned up at Princeton?

With the comment that Gene got in 98 hanging over our heads all the time and
the clearly stated requirement of Princeton that there must be a Princeton
organization connected with a list and an active list owner at Princeton it
may not be possible.

I have no problem if we can become legal. If there is someone at Princeton
with a willingness of their organization to sponsor the CoCo list please get
in touch and have them take over. There may well be one or more. I have not
seen any hints as to how to try and find one.

If the CoCo list owner should appear in response to my message or anyone
else's, I would help him to make the changes to stop the SPAM. If he would
be willing to continue would be his call. If he can pass list ownership onto
someone else who would agree to spend the time necessary or appoint helpers
to do the work that would be fine also. I will have to look and see if a
list owner can by themselves pass ownership to someone else. If they can, I
would expect that a message would be sent to the Master list owner when that
happens.  List owners can appoint helpers. Being overloaded the master list
owner might not investigate to see if the new list owner met the
requirements of being connected to Princeton.

The CoCo list owner is not responding to messages sent to him by Neil and
myself. If he does not respond then there is no way to stop the SPAM without
contacting Princeton.

The gateway from Usenet needs to be investigated to make sure that no SPAM
can get in that way. The SPAM posted to Usenet CoCo newsgroup is not under
the control of the listserver, there is no method to stop it from being
posted, but it can be kept out of the mailing list. It will have to wait
until the problem is solved Internet wide. I have heard a promise about
e-mail by 2006 but no words about newsgroups.

> Now I would like to quote a comment that Gene made
> earlier:
>
> "FWIW, I contacted the Princeton folks, oh, maybe in 98 or
> possibly even earlier, memory is hazy, and that message
> doesn't exist on this machine although it might be on my
> firewall yet, or it may even be so old its on my now
> defunct amiga. At that time I was told by some probably
> flunky admin that it was best not to disturb the service
> as the very act of raising a hand to request a change
> might get TPTB to
> decide it was no longer worth the hassle and shut it down
> just to get some peace and quiet. Based on that message, I
> recommended to the group that we simply lay low and put up
> with the crap. If they are now claiming that they could
> have fixed it, we must be talking to two different
> administration people, not impossible considering the
> elapsed time of nearly 6 years."

I stated elsewhere that I have not contacted anyone. I am still interested
as to what issue was asked by Gene. Maybe questions can be asked that will
not bring attention to us.

> 1) Others who chose to stay with the Princeton list might
> not appreciate it being closed down without any say in the
> matter.  I may be wrong, but I do remember someone saying
> that Carl Boll is still on the Princeton list.  What about
> him and others who still use the list.

Carl has been noted as being unwilling to join us here. Several other people
with names I recognize still remained subscribed to the list. If they are
receiving e-mail from the list is not stated. Reading the list via the web
page also is not stated. Those who are subscribed to both lists I have not
counted, but I will.

Then there are 15 members that have set their profile to hide their names.

The number of posts about the CoCo is a very low number and it is getting
smaller as the weeks go by. No one is using the Princeton list. I am
watching the newsgroup and while it has suddenly become very erratic the
mail list by getting the indexes. That way I do not have to download the
SPAM.

As to a say in the matter of the list being shut down in a controlled
manner, any vote would include their votes.

As to one person having a veto power, I would balance treating Princeton
well as a equal power.

> 2) Once they are made aware of an issue with spam on the
> CoCo list, TPTB may decide to shut down not just the CoCo
> list, but other lists too.  I don't think those people
> will be to happy about that.

Just how many of the public lists have owners that do not belong to a
Princeton organization and thus also must hide in the shadows? I have no way
of knowing. Is that what they are teaching in law schools now?

In the 6,147 lists there may be some.

> 3) As Gene also pointed out, this current list is made
> available to us all by Dennis graciously giving up some of
> his time to manage it.  Where would we move from here?  We
> may need to fall back to the Princeton list some day.

I have wondered if it can be kept alive for that purpose.

I really would feel better if our backup plan was completely legal.

> Yes for most of us, the Princeton list is no longer a
> viable option, but for some it still is and IMHO we do not
> have the right to step on their toes.  My advice is, if
> you have moved to this list, why care about the Princeton
> list.  Yes it would be nice to thank the people at
> Princeton, but why run the risk of ruining the Princeton
> list any more for those who have chosen to stay.  All this
> really does is remove a resource for some people and
> fragment the already fragmented CoCo community even more.
>
>
> Jim

I wish that you would collect and build a definition of the options you wish
us to vote on, and then take the vote. Please include comments from anyone
still using the Princeton list.

Is it your intent to keep the Princeton list for the Spammers? Then they
will win the vote as there are so many of them.

I am concerned about your attitude to our gracious hosts for over 15 years.
I continue to believe that they deserve better treatment than what you are
implying they should get. I am open to other plans that treat Princeton
well.

That is why I care about the Princeton list.

-- 
Stephen H. Fischer <sfischer1 at mindspring.com>