From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 21:08:08 CST
>> Given that they can get privacy by using one of the Usenet providers
>> that offers it, for a small monthly cost (<$5), I don't see why the
>> default shouldn't be to use the raw IP address (as is presently the
>> case). People who want privacy can get it. Clueless sites will not
>> be handicapped by the software being harder to use than necessary.
>
> Because it costs both money, and requires using a distant news server
> or having to get news software that can be easily configured to post
> via one server while reading via the local one. If you're not reading
> on a relatively local server, you are starting to lose most of what USENET
> is and why it was created and still flourishes.
"Relatively local" is relative to the net. For many people, one of
the dedicated Usenet providers will provide much better connectivity
than their ISP's news swervers.
> As indicated elsewhere, the IP address is a very poor choice, even if
> it weren't for the fact that we static-IP users lose our privacy when
> it is used.
It works and it's the current standard (in the sense that most places
use it). Given that many (probably most) newsadmins wouldn't be able
to decode other tokens no matter how easy the softare writers try to
make it, that's a deciding issue (for me).
> If spam detection is your goal, a token created by local admins who actually
> know the config of their network and who know one DHCP user from another
> is more useful, and avoids the incorrect filtering of the innocent.
Unfortunately, the number of such local admins is significantly
smaller (by orders of magnitude) than the number of news admins.
Seth