[G] Controlling Undesirables on Reflectors

marshall katz (marshall_katz@mchfmccm.navy.mil)
Fri, 19 Jan 96 09:33:24 EST

A suggestion for Cornell & White Pine:

In the Reflector Software, make the "Message of the Day" (MOTD) a
[mandatory reflector setup option] and provide a standard format to
the MOTD with the following MANDATORY fields:



Reflector Name: In the clear domain name required.
IP: n.n.n.n
Administrator: Administrators Name
EMail Address: Administrators EMail Address
Designation: Public or Educational or Private or other (?)
Send/Receive: State what your send/receive rates are.
FAQ: http:// put the best Web site for FAQ, e.g.,
(Sattler, Luc, etc.)
Additional Info: Here's where you would put announcements and/or
any additional information.

In my opinion, I think that if you standardize this information it
will help to solve many of the problems on the reflectors being

However, I also feel the reflector operators share some of the blame
too. You wouldn't walk away from your PC at work logged onto your
system, a rhetorical question, as that would be a security violation.
Here is a case where the reflector operators go home at night leaving
the PC on, so to speak, and connected to the network. Now, what else
would you expect, the gremlins jump in and start having fun (?). Also,
without the pertinent information listed in the MOTD as I suggest, the
reflector administrators are just as anonymous as the undesirables.

Again for Cornell & White Pine:

I suggest adding a "Kick" option to the reflector software whereby
the administrator's of Public reflectors can exercise that right to
"Kick" someone off for inappropriate behavior, speech, text, etc. OK,
the reflector operators will now say that's unfair to them 'cause they
will have to spend long hours at work to police the reflector. I
suggest the Public Reflectors (especially the .EDU's) get student
volunteers to act in their stead, similar to the AOL Guides and with
the ability to "Kick" option enabled for them. This type of
option/action may or may not be required on a adult reflector. This
"Kick" option already exists if one exceeds the send/receive rates.

Again for Cornell & White Pine:

Most of the current users of CU-SeeMe users have adjusted their
send/receive rates to acceptable levels. However, you continue to
release your software with undesirable .ini settings as initial .ini
values to the newbies. This causes them to get nasty grams from the
server concerning their send/receive rates which ultimately gets them
"Kicked". I suggest Cornell or WhitePine chair a "Developer" mail
list topic, with the reflector administrators, to come up with a
standard setting acceptable to all and then make the consensus the
default values in the initial .ini generated from CU-SeeMe during
setup. That will eliminate a lot of postings in this mail list and
make CU-SeeMe more User and Reflector "Friendly".


Someone in the mail list complained about regulars (and Cornell or
White Pine) not answering questions being posted here. They are
answering questions (as I am), however, I believe in most cases, only
directly to whomever posted the question. Just think how much mail
you would have to read through if they posted to the mail list as well
as answered directly. Now that wouldn't be such a big issue for all
of us if everyone cooperated using a designation in the subject line.
Only a couple folks have started to use the [G] General, [PC] PC, [M]
Mac, [R] Reflector designations prefacing the subject line. When
someone joins this mail list, along with sending them the unsubscribe
instructions, the methodology for correct posting should also be
included citing the various categories we all agreed to. Then the
list server should start enforcing the standard by trashing postings
not meeting the criteria. Of course, that shouldn't be necessary,

Just my $.02. I hope the suggestion(s) above lead to more
"POSITIVE" postings with solutions & suggestions to solving our
collective problems rather than a lot of personal opinion and
complaining, etc. Help keep this mail list from becoming a "Talk
Show" discussion.

Very respectfully, Marshall...