🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May20.064047.13740@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>In article <1991May19.183202.5575@sceard.Sceard.COM> mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) writes:
[...]
>>Again, clearly a forgery.
>
>not a forgery.  (changed my .sig as it seems to conflict with my actions
>according to some of the email i've gotten.)
I didn't know it wasn't a forgery:-) <-- smiley for Severly Humor-Impaired TwitS
>
>the "mine" in the message, was an organizational "mine", as opposed to a
>personal "mine".
New definition of the word "mine" :-)
[...]
>seems to me that the direction of the net is towards greed and ignorance.
>
Is it surprising that lsuc (Law Society...) would seek the administrative rather
than the technical solution? :-)

Much as I would like to see the facilities offered by MBAS's available, I, too,
agree that the potential for abuse is such that it is not likely to find a
feasable way to keep the concept in general. Too bad. If the non-Internet sites
are lucky, then the major providers like uunet will react quickly to the need
and come up with something reasonable. I would suggest something like the 1 hop
criterion, or maybe a file at the provider similar to a paths file where an
entry in the file indicates a legal path for a request.
-- 
Mike Murphy  mrm@Sceard.COM  ucsd!sceard!mrm  +1 619 598 5874