Re: Usenet gateway?

Albert D. Cahalan (
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:46:39 -0400 (EDT)

Christoph Lameter writes:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David S. Miller wrote:
>> From: Christoph Lameter <>

[quoting reordered because new stuff belongs last]

>>> I will make that petition drive if we cannot agree even on
>>> this limited less dangerous version than dejanews of making
>>> the content public.
>> Fine, you do what you think is necessary. I will say finally that
>> dejagnus gets the posting at their site before me or anyone else does,
>> I even bypass all of the exploders and make vger deliver directly to
>> their archive machine.
>> I will stop running vger and shut it down, if the petition decides
>> that usenet is necessary. Of course, I will provide the subscription
>> and configuration files for the lists to whoever wants to run it
>> instead.
> Please confirm that you really intend to go against what I think is a
> big group of linuxers needs. What you are doing is blackmail.
> I would wish you would assert your copyright to these things as
> Alan said. That would be great thing for my petition. What you do
> here flies straight in the face of the goals of the Linux Software.
> In that case I think we cannot cooperate any further and I will
> shut down everything I am running for you.

Whoa people! Grow up! (both of you & others)

The mailing list is very important, as is an official 1-way gateway.
These do-it-yourself gateways are causing problems. They must go away.
They _will_ go away if an official gateway exists. Isn't vger overloaded?
The "no gateway" policy adds more subscriber load, including people
that only need read-only access. Others give up because the traffic is
too much for normal mail software and people take vacations sometimes.

Gateway properties include:

1. officially approved
2. vger -> usenet ONLY
3. destroy email addresses (headers, body...)
4. no posts on usenet side (moderater is FAQ autoresponder)
5. remove MIME, PGP, and HTML patch corruption for usenet
6. support X-Keep-Email: header for those that tolerate spam
7. enforce read-only nature with automatic cancel
8. fast, with priority above other exploders

Are there really any serious objections to that?