🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ByuG25.A5v@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>... I stated that the only time that it's appropriate for
>a third party to cancel a post is in the case of a moderator canceling
>unapproved articles to his/her group.

Actually there are more reasons than just that.  Just about a month ago
someone posted about a mailing list I run in a popular related newsgroup.
Unfortunately he listed the address of the list itself as the address to
send to to get subscribed.  This resulted in several dozen folks sending
subscribe requests to the list in a short period of time.  This caused a
lot of wasted resources and inconvenience to nearly 300 subscribers who
all received the misguided subscription requests.  Since I felt that this
was somewhat urgent, I sent out a cancel message for the article and
then sent a note to the poster explaining what I did and why.  The
poster was not upset at what I did.  It's difficult to make clear cut
rules of what is and is not an acceptable use of third-party cancel.
Best I can come up with is if it causes some quantifiable damage, then
the affected third-party should be able to cancel.  I also think that
notifying the original poster of this action is an important thing to
do, as the person will be much more understanding about things if you
are up-front and clear about the action.  It's also important that only
the affected party should issue the cancel, as they are the only ones
to judge whether the damage is significant enough and urgent enough to
warrant a cancel.

--- jim@pi-chan.ucsb.edu --- Jim Lick --- jim@tcp.com --- jIngOrO@CaveMUCK ---
--:):-- perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most -- |\| | |/| --:(:--
--- CaveMUCK is back! --- Telnet to cave.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) port 2283 ---