Copyright © 1990-2010 by Prof. Timo Salmi
Last modified Sat 13-Mar-2010 16:56:01
|
|
Copyright © 1990-2010 by Prof. Timo Salmi Last modified Sat 13-Mar-2010 16:56:01 |
|
Let me offer some hopefully useful information about distributing
material as binary postings on the Usenet news.First of all this should not be taken as a recrimination against any individual poster of binaries to a discussion newsgroup, but rather as a reminder to all of us of the potential problems involved. Because this information is at the same time intended to help the well-meaning posters of binaries, there are pointers at the end of this item on how to make your binary available in the proper way.
If someone sees these things differently, ok, but please note that I would rather not get flaming, indignant arguments crashing in over this issue. I'd prefer not to waste the time with the bickering. All civilized views are naturally always welcome. The best place to debate the issue is news.admin.net-abuse.usenet. First, however, please see "The Bincancel FAQ by Shaun Davis-Gluyas" binfaq.zip and "Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions by Tim Skirvin" available on the WWW.
Also please note that it does not make a decisive difference whether these postings in fact just contain sources and no executables. The problems are similar whatever (binary posting or something else) we decide call this method of distribution. The same applies whether the binary posting is a short or a long one. This is not just a simple question of "bandwidth" (a term some users are so in love with).
I know and understand that most of who do this mean well, and wish to contribute to the general usefulness of the Usenet news. We all appreciate that. Nevertheless, I would strongly advise against posting binaries to unmoderated discussion newsgroups. On top of that the net rules don't allow it, let's look at this from a purely practical point of view. If other netters follow suit and start posting binaries to discussion newsgroups not meant for this purpose, there are several potential problems:
Many, if not most, reputable Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) have Terms of Service (TOS) that outright forbid the posting
of binaries into non-binary Usenet groups (and other breaches of the
netiquette). You might even lose your ISP if you do not
comply.
With binaries the traffic would quickly explode, since
sending them is likely to be more or less haphazard. This is bound
to invoke action sooner or later from the systems along the feed
and/or net administration, even when the condition of no binaries in
discussions newsgroups is not explicitly written in the original
IPS's terms.
Sending binaries to non-binary newsgroups is ineffective and
thus irrational because many major newsservers refuse to carry and
forward postings which include any binary material in a non-binary
newsgroup.
Posting binaries to discussion newsgroups can be futile
altogether, since the misplaced binary postings often are quickly be
made to disappear. Furthermore, there can be automatic canceling
systems in effect, the best known being Richard Depew's
bincancels.
When you send a binary posting to a discussion newsgroup you
usually do it to share your material with the other users, right?
But since, as explained above, binaries in the discussion newsgroups
easily get canceled or at least are not always carried forward, your
distribution purpose will at least partly be defeated. Furthermore,
the misplaced binaries are culled from news repositories such as
Google. Is this what you really want for your posting?
As a reader of newsgroups be aware that there are no
guarantees against trojans and other nasties in binary postings.
(This does not mean that the other methods of distributing binaries
are absolutely safe, but the likelihood is smaller by far.)
The probability of pirated commercial material being posted
over the net increases, with all the consequent repercussions.
Even in the cases where redistribution of a program (through
the proper channels) is otherwise allowed by the author (have you
asked), it is fairly typical that the posted binary may be only a
portion of the valid distribution package. For example, it is very
common that only the executable from the full zipped package is
being posted. Most authors, even freeware authors, forbid
distributing parts of their material detached from the full
distribution version.
The idea is very wasteful of net resources. Remember that
many newsgroups easily have over 100000 readers, and, above all,
that the newsgroups are carried by innumerable services all around
the globe. This means an enormous amount of equivalent copies in
existence. It is much better to put/get stuff into/from the orderly
moderated groups, or use WWW pages, anonymous ftp, or mail servers
for the distribution. The latter options are especially efficient
since that way the material is only in one (or a few mirror) places
and is accessed by only those who actually want it.
Even should the binary posting be just a short minor one, it
may easily snowball by invoking others. Even if a single binary
posting need not be harmful in any way per se, the danger of the
snowballing effect must be kept in mind.Please note that while many binaries newsgroups have the tell-tale word binary in the newsgroup's name, that is not a guarantee that the newsgroup is a binary newsgroup. For example, the (long-since removed) newsgroups comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d and comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted were discussion-only newsgroups, not binaries newsgroups!
It is quite usual that some users facing this information tend to
counter with something along the lines "But that was a very useful
binary". This is missing the actual point. These postings often
include very useful material. But this does not exempt any
binary posting, however useful, from the problems listed above.
Furthermore, the "ban" on posting binaries to discussion newsgroups
is an established net code of conduct. It is not just my view, even
if I happen to concur. I am just providing the information for the
potential posters.
Alan Brown offered this additional point. "Many sites are
connected via uucp using 2400bps modems over LD links. They
generally don't take binaries groups because of the cost involved in
getting them and/or a lack of hard drive space. Posting a binary to
a discussion group directly costs them a considerable amount of
money and may cause their disks to overflow."
That comment now is a few years old. It is true that there has been enormous development in transfer speeds and equipment. However, not everyone has the latest state-of-the-art paraphernalia. Furthermore, there are low-bandwidth radio links e.g. via cellular phones to portables.
Some, usually novice users typically facing a programming problem
tend to attach their problem code as a binary to their postings on
the Usenet newsgroups. You should not do that! The netiquette about
not posting binaries covers also this situation. Furthermore, it is
not fair to the other readers to expect them to open the binary
attachment to try to help you. Since in most in these situations it
is about a small piece of code, include the brief code in
plain ASCII. If there are any special characters in the code replace
them appropriately. Remember, that it is about your problem you wish
to get help. Please do not create additional problems for your
potentials helpers.
Some software authors who wish to present their programs on the
Usenet news include .gif, .jpg or similar images in their postings
to demonstrate their programs' features. That is plain net abuse
putting much improper traffic burden on the Usenet news. The only
proper method is to put such material to your website instead of
forcing it on the Usenet news readers. The same principle goes,
naturally, for any other such demonstrations using images. They
definitely do not belong to the Usenet news discussion
newsgroups.
Please note that what is said in this FAQ is not limited to sending
executable programs as binary postings. The advice goes for all
kinds of binary attachments and other special formats, including
uuencoded,
mimed,
base64:d,
HTML,
multi-part,
word-processor
or
similar files. In the earlier
Usenet news days the sending of a binary almost always was
deliberate. But in these days the problem has become more
complicated because the user might include binary attachments
unknowingly. Always use the text/plain format (i.e. straight ASCII)
when posting to the Usenet newsgroups.In particular, please be careful not to use/include HTML code in your postings. If you are using e.g. Netscape, Internet Explorer or Microsoft Outlook Express, make sure to turn off sending HTML messages. E.g. in Netscape choose Edit | Preferences | Mail & Groups | Message | Message properties, and turn off the "By default, send HTML messages". Likewise, you should turn off "Attaching Address Book Card to messages" (also called vCards), at least when posting to the Usenet newsgroups. The exact route to turn off sending in HTML varies from program to program, and even from version to version. In Outlook Express select Tools | Options | Send and check the "plain text" choice. For more information see e.g. "Posting News Using HTML" by Kathy Pascoe.
The following standard message from the NNQ moderation board
recounts the same principle:
| "Discussion groups (including news.newusers.questions) should contain only plain-text material that can be read easily by anyone, regardless of the software or hardware that they are using. This means that you should not attach word-processing documents that require specific software such as Microsoft Word, or post HTML or MIME-encoded documents." |
Word processor, spreadsheet and similar files and attachments are
not free of the problems stated. Quite the contrary. They have
become one of the main avenues of propagating macro viruses,
especially if they come from familiar sources one has no reason to
suspect. Do not post for example Microsoft Word or Excel
files or attachments to Usenet discussion newsgroups. Furthermore,
it always is advisable to scan such files with a good virus scanner
with up-to-date virus signature files before touching any
attachments, whatever their origin. The security features of some
common tools, such as Microsoft's Outlook Express have left an awful
lot to be desired. We all have probably at least heard of the
notorious Melissa, Loveletter and the like, which prey on the
program's weaknesses.
What is to posted where, and what not, works both ways. As has been
emphasized, it is not proper to post binaries to discussion
newsgroups. Furthermore, it is not conductive post discussion to
binary newsgroups. Binary newsgroups are for distributing
binaries. They usually have companion or otherwise suitable
near-newsgroups for the discussions. Besides, since binary
newsgroups are not carried by all ISPs (e.g. because of the
volumes), the discussion will be lost on a considerable number of
the usual readership.
One argument that has been raised in favor of binaries or HTML in
discussion messages, is that in some matters, like technical
drawings, illustrative screen captures and mathematical formulas are
best conveyed as pictures among the text of the posting. This
argument is understandable, but it requires that such attachments
are explicitly allowed in the charter of the newsgroup. If that is
the case, then the binaries, as long as they conform to the
charter's requirements, naturally are proper. If the charter and
practice does no not condone binary material, then it is improper
and thus net abuse to include such material.It has been also been put forward that the netiquette has fallen behind its time in not allowing binaries in discussion newsgroups. That is not a good argument. There are many good reasons for the norm, as explained throughout also this page. Besides, as is obvious from the previous paragraph, if binaries are not allowed where you think they should, it is not the netiquette's fault but the relevant newsgroup's charter's.
When I post this (or similar information) as a followup to a
misplaced binary posting on the Usenet news, it often elicits what I
call "the bandwidth myth". It usually goes, somewhat aggressively,
like this. "Isn't your followup posting as much a waste of
bandwidth as the original posting?" This is a fallacy. The
comparison is mismatched. The comparison should be not only with the
original, misplaced posting but also with all the potential others
it helps to redirect to the proper channels. Besides, the purpose is
to help users to find their way, not to complain. For more please
see the giving netiquette advice item.
