Imminent death of USENET predicted! Film at 11! (was: Spam tool addition...)

[Peter da Silva]

In article <5177cb$c301...@murdoch.systems.sa.gov.au>,
Garth Kidd <ga...@pisces.systems.sa.gov.au> wrote:
>Some readers may remember the balyhoo in the *.security newsgroups a while back
>when someone started threatening to release full details of the known holes in
>sendmail because he was sick of the "conspiracy of silence" about them. [...]

There's no conspiracy of silence about the holes in Usenet. Usenet *is* the
holes. If you want to fix them all and end up with Fidonet II, go ahead.

This isn't a Dan Farmer case at all.

[Peter da Silva]

In article <3ps67n$k...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Dave Hayes <da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>With no cancel messages possible, and newsreaders being agents that
>filter out spam and flames and messages from me and other things
>the net is afrai...er...doesn't want, I don't think there will BE
>a problem.

Boy, that really sounds like an environment where free speech is possible.

NOT.

I can get a useful Usenet feed on $400 worth of hardware and a $10/month
phone bill. People can read news on this system with a $20 used terminal.

Your ideal net requires $5000 worth of hardware on everyone's desk.

Everyone's, because people aren't so happy about providing shell accounts
any more so most people won't be able to run HayesNetReader on their ISP's
dime.