What USENET needs is a distributed system for collection of per-article
and per-sender ratings, and for filtration based on those ratings. That
would be useful for other applications, as well 
I would argue that what USENET needs is a way for the cost of
publication to be incurred by the publisher; storing the data in your
own repository (or repositories) while pointers get flooded through
the USENET distribution system would give publishers an incentive to
do garbage collection that they do not have today.
It would almost be like gluing a USENET distribution front-end onto a
collection of Napster back-ends.
Stephen
Kinda' off topic, but I've seen this gibberish in many spam posts to usenet
groups. What purpose does it serve?
Thanks,
--Michael
"She may will virtually cook above Ron when the sticky wrinkles
nibble with the sharp river. One more pathetic fresh weavers
firmly wander as the abysmal frames dream.
Why will you reject the sweet deep tags before Priscilla does?
Hardly any empty envelopes are polite and other short printers are
cheap, but will Pearl irrigate that? She'd rather cover eventually than
scold with Ophelia's fat dose.
Are you kind, I mean, arriving without handsome candles? He might
judge the difficult sauce and explain it in front of its light.
Every proud dryers dye Jay, and they wistfully receive Elisa too. Get your
easily climbing ball inside my mirror. You won't help me recommending
outside your smart monument. Some forks fear, excuse, and taste. Others
angrily sow."
[40 more lines snipped]
Michael Painter wrote:
Kinda' off topic, but I've seen this gibberish in many spam posts
to usenet groups. What purpose does it serve?
Randomly generated, grammatically-correct (somewhat) text, designed to
sneak the message past various filters (like anti-binary, and minimum-
length.)
I have no idea if it works or not.
-- David
I would argue that what USENET needs is a way for the cost of
publication to be incurred by the publisher; storing the data in your
own repository (or repositories) while pointers get flooded through
the USENET distribution system would give publishers an incentive to
do garbage collection that they do not have today.
  Like many Internet settlement schemes, this seems to not make much sense. If
a person reads USENET for many years enjoying all of its wisdom, why should
he get a free ride? And why should the people who supply that wisdom have to
pay to do so? A USENET transaction is presumed to benefit both parties, or
else they wouldn't have configured their computers to make that transaction.
  Does it make sense for the New York Times to pay me to read it? But perhaps
it does for the Weekly Advertiser.
  The reason that automated schemes such as "publisher pays" will fail is
because determining who "should" pay is too complex for automated schemes.
You will just push around who takes advantage of who.
  If you ask a question, you should pay. If I provide you with useful help,
you should pay. If I suggest a commercial solution to your problem, who
should pay? If I harass you for not knowing the answer to the question, I
should pay.
  DS
If you ask a question, you should pay. If I provide you with useful help,
you should pay. If I suggest a commercial solution to your problem, who
should pay? If I harass you for not knowing the answer to the question, I
should pay.<<
Hmm, reminds me of the Compu$erve Forums, which, ironically, met their demise
(imho) when the WWW (and Usenet) started to blossom.
ex 70720,151