3 ms·
It is your fault, but, nevertheless I disagree that it is bad to not do stuff about it (although of course you can do it anyways if you want to). I prefer not t
by zzo38computer 7y ago
It is your fault, but, nevertheless I disagree that it is bad to not do stuff about it (although of course you can do it anyways if you want to). I prefer not to have such stuff; I allow any except that I do not have unlimited bandwidth ahd disk space, so there is that consideration only. Clients can use kill files and other filters (if accessing them by NNTP) to avoid messages they do not like. Messages can also be copied on other servers, which may have different policies; I do not policy your server that copies the messages, but only not to overly flood the bandwidth. My software, called "sqlnetnews", deliberately does not support control messages (you can still post messages with a "Supersedes" header, since it can still be useful sometimes, but it won't result in the old version deleted; it does, however, reject any messages with a "Approved" header). Maybe you hate me for it, but Dave Hayes has "Freedom Knights" and it is like that (but in my case, for Unusenet rather than Usenet). While cancels can be posted (as long as the "Approved" header is omitted), they are not processed. I will not force anyone to use these services and will not disallow others from making echo services (a feature of Unusenet, designed to enforce that you have freedom globally even if not locally (local policies are up to the server administrator, not me)).