kenk@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US (Ken Konecki) (04/26/89)
Hello everybody,
I've tried posting some stuff (twice) to comp.sources.mac and so far it
hasn't appeared (and I've waited 4 weeks). I've used Pnews to have it
automatically send the file to the moderator and I've also sent it
directly to the address for postings (thanks to everyone who provided
that info for me). Any idea on why it hasn't shown up? Is there any
criteria for postings I'm not aware of?
Thanks a billion,
-Ken K
--
Ken Konecki
"A squeegee by any other name wouldn't sound as funny"
e-mail:kenk@tellab5.UUCP -or- ...!uunet!tellab5!kenk
U.S. Mail: 1271 Portchester Circle, Carol Stream, IL 60188jackiw@cs.swarthmore.edu (Nick Jackiw) (04/27/89)
In article <1316@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> kenk@tellab5.UUCP (Ken Konecki) writes: > Hello everybody, > I've tried posting some stuff (twice) to comp.sources.mac and so far it > hasn't appeared (and I've waited 4 weeks). > Any idea on why it hasn't shown up? Is there any > criteria for postings I'm not aware of? > > -Ken K Posters to either of the moderated mac groups (binaries and sources) should be aware that there is a lengthy backlog (measurable in months)... the moderator either finds himself somewhat (and understandably) overwhelmed, or he enforces (for reasons unknown) a delay policy. Only important Virus information, Apple technical information, and patches to major commercial software packages make it through with any rapidity. Maybe if people posting to comp.mac.sources would put "SOURCES" in their subject line, he could modify his mail-handler (which I assume is auto- mated to some degree) to put sources through more quickly. In that this is a low-to-zero-volume group, and in that its postings frequently relate to discussions in comp.sys.mac or comp.sys.mac.programmer, the three- to four- month delay is much more keenly felt than in mac.binaries (which provides us with a relatively steady stream of goodies). -- _ _|\____ Nick Jackiw | Visual Geometry Project | Math Department / /_/ O> \ ------------+-------------------------+ Swarthmore College | O> | 215-328-8225| jackiw@cs.swarthmore.edu| Swarthmore PA 19081 \_Guernica_/ ------------+-------------------------+ USA
nagel@beaver.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (04/28/89)
In article <2765@carthage.cs.swarthmore.edu>, jackiw@cs (Nick Jackiw) writes: |In article <1316@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> kenk@tellab5.UUCP (Ken Konecki) writes: |> Hello everybody, |> I've tried posting some stuff (twice) to comp.sources.mac and so far it |> hasn't appeared (and I've waited 4 weeks). |> Any idea on why it hasn't shown up? Is there any |> criteria for postings I'm not aware of? | |Posters to either of the moderated mac groups (binaries and sources) |should be aware that there is a lengthy backlog (measurable in months)... |the moderator either finds himself somewhat (and understandably) |overwhelmed, or he enforces (for reasons unknown) a delay policy. Only |important Virus information, Apple technical information, and patches |to major commercial software packages make it through with any rapidity. I think the problem may be more than that. I recently handled failed mail to macintosh@felix.uucp through ucivax. As is obvious from c.b.m posts, the actual address is macintosh@dhw68k.uucp == macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com. Apparently, when Roger left FileNet, they kept an alias for forwarding mail to dhw68k. The failed mail I handled, however, had an error header saying that macintosh was an unknown address at felix. The real problem here is that the moderator tables on backbone sites probably need to be updated to point to macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com. I have notified Roger of this problem and asked him to take steps to correct it. In the meantime, a workaround for this is to mail directly to the correct address rather than posting to c.s.m or c.b.m. Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science +----------------------------------------+ ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu | The world is coming to an end. | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel | Please log off. |
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (04/28/89)
Why are postings to comp.sources.mac moderated at all? At our site the last message to c.s.m is #9, and this hasn't changed in months. I think people should be encouraged to post to c.s.m., and I can't see that the load is such that it needs to be moderated. Are there other reasons? Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (05/02/89)
In article <2969@tank.uchicago.edu> ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >Why are postings to comp.sources.mac moderated at all? At our site the last >message to c.s.m is #9, and this hasn't changed in months. I think people >should be encouraged to post to c.s.m., and I can't see that the load is such >that it needs to be moderated. Are there other reasons? > I don't have an answer to your question but I have sent mail to the moderator at least 5 times in the last 3 months. No bounces, no answer. Is there anyone home ? :-( -Kent+
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (05/02/89)
In article <1316@tellab5.tellabs.CHI.IL.US> Ken Konecki writes: > Hello everybody, > I've tried posting some stuff (twice) to comp.sources.mac and so far it > hasn't appeared (and I've waited 4 weeks). > Any idea on why it hasn't shown up? Is there any > criteria for postings I'm not aware of? No special criteria. It's just that sources get jumbled in with all of the binaries in the queue, and even things identified as source usually end up being StuffIt archives which are posted to comp.binaries.mac, regardless of WHAT they contain. The comp.sources.mac newsgroup is for human readable source, and many people find that StuffIt archives containing binary resource files and binary Makefiles are more useful. In article <2765@carthage.cs.swarthmore.edu> Nick Jackiw writes: | |Posters to either of the moderated mac groups (binaries and sources) |should be aware that there is a lengthy backlog (measurable in months)... |the moderator either finds himself somewhat (and understandably) |overwhelmed, or he enforces (for reasons unknown) a delay policy. Only |important Virus information, Apple technical information, and patches |to major commercial software packages make it through with any rapidity. There is a lengthy backlog due to the volume of information that passes through comp.binaries.mac. Time sensitive information does make it out quite quickly, and hopefully what I've considered time sensitive is considered useful by those who monitor comp.binaries.mac. In article <12822@paris.ics.uci.edu> Mark Nagel writes: >I think the problem may be more than that. I recently handled failed >mail to macintosh@felix.uucp through ucivax. As is obvious from c.b.m >posts, the actual address is macintosh@dhw68k.uucp == >macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com. Apparently, when Roger left FileNet, they >kept an alias for forwarding mail to dhw68k. The failed mail I >handled, however, had an error header saying that macintosh was an >unknown address at felix. The real problem here is that the moderator >tables on backbone sites probably need to be updated to point to >macintosh@dhw68k.cts.com. I have notified Roger of this problem and >asked him to take steps to correct it. Please leave the submission addresses for comp.binaries.mac and comp.sources.mac as macintosh@felix.UUCP Mail should be sent to dhw68k ONLY as a last resort. Any mail that bounces from felix is probably a fluke, or due to felix being a poor, overworked Vax 11/750 running ancient software. I continue to receive submissions sent to via felix.UUCP and would appreciate it if that would continue until such time as I announce a new submission address. >In the meantime, a workaround for this is to mail directly to the >correct address rather than posting to c.s.m or c.b.m. Mail postings to macintosh@felix.UUCP or post to comp.binaries.mac. -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
lipa@polya.Stanford.EDU (William J. Lipa) (05/04/89)
I'm not sure what the deal with comp.sources.mac is, but in the meantime, I'd love to get whatever source code you were going to post for Info-Mac. Just send it off to info-mac@sumex-aim.stanford.edu with a note about what it's supposed to do. Putting stuff on Info-Mac is an effective way to get widespread distribution of your files. Bill Lipa Info-Mac
david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) (05/04/89)
In article <471@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Systems Administrator) writes: >.... >I don't have an answer to your question but I have sent mail to the >moderator at least 5 times in the last 3 months. No bounces, no answer. >Is there anyone home ? :-( I am the S/A & owner of the machine where Roger currently has the account that he uses to moderate the comp.{binaries,sources}.mac newsgroups. At the moment (as I write this), he is logged in, preparing "at" jobs to submit things to the newsgroups while he is on vacation for a few days; however, I can assure you that someone is, indeed, "home" most of the time. If you have trouble reaching Roger, you may try sending inquiries as to the nature of the problem to me; if mail to this site seems to be ineffective, you may try calling my work telephone at (714) 385-4055. However, if the problem is an issue of Roger's policies and procedures in moderating the newsgroups, there is no point in sending such inquiries my way -- that is properly Roger's concern. Please do not attempt to send submissions to either of those newsgroups to me: I neither own nor use a Mac. david -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com
moore@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Doug Moore) (05/05/89)
There is no question that moderating comp.*.mac is a time-consuming job. Thank you, Mr. Long. That said, it is also clear that there is a problem with the newsgroups. I have never, to my knowledge, been able to get mail to the moderator, and I know others in the same category. Perhaps it is not my place to suggest more work for the moderator, but I feel that either, (1) a weekly posting to comp.binaries.mac or comp.sys.mac describing the state of the newsgroup queue or (2) a policy of acknowledging the receipt of submissions is called for. At the moment, the question "Will my submission get posted?" is recursively enumerable, but not recursive. That is, you wait and wait and never know when you've waited long enough. Doug Moore (moore@cs.cornell.edu)
werner@molokai.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) (05/06/89)
In <22700@dhw68k.cts.com>, david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) writes: > In article <471@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Systems Administrator) writes: > >.... > >I don't have an answer to your question but I have sent mail to the > >moderator at least 5 times in the last 3 months. No bounces, no answer. > >..... > If you have trouble reaching Roger, you may try sending inquiries as to > the nature of the problem to me; if mail to this site seems to be > ineffective, you may try calling my work telephone at (714) 385-4055. > > However, if the problem is an issue of Roger's policies and procedures > in moderating the newsgroups, there is no point in sending such > inquiries my way -- that is properly Roger's concern. both Roger and David have kindly spoken up reassured us that there is no technical problem. which leaves us with policies and procedures (unless we can find establish that there is a technical problem after all) moderating an active group and dealing with all the administrative email-traffic is no little task, and I am certain that Roger often feels like "punting" a couple of days mail ... (hmm, maybe he does sometimes?! Good for you, Roger! :-) However, I am one of the first who would like to see certain procedural techniques used that would make the group a more effective and pleasant communication tool. ONE item I had been "preaching" for years is to ACKnowlege all incoming mail - no more than an "ACK receipt", at least. Roger does not do that and I find that most annoying, enough so that I'd want to see that defined as a task the group expects of their chosen moderator. Of course, there is still always a chance that an ACK gets lost every once in a while, but read on ... SECOND, I believe it would be very desirable to broadcast all articles with a built-in "sanity check" ...mainly a sequence number in the Subject header, which would allow all readers to notice when something is missing. THIRD, it would be most wise and effective to post, regularly, the list of items in "the queue" waiting to be posted. LAST, I ask of my moderators of choice that they keep the group informed of any articles which get rejected or sent back to the authors with a request for a modification. To avoid any confusion, Roger did not take on the moderator job with these or any other agreed on "guidelines", and I even think that this task may be too much for one person to handle with any consistency (and when Roger requested relief from his post a year ago, I told him when he asked me if I would take the job that I feel unable to commit the required time, but that I would like to see a cooperative of about 5 people, with, at least one in each participating continent, and that I'd consider being part of such a group; I never heard back from Roger regarding this suggestion, as a matter of fact, he had announced his "resignation" and I must have missed the announcement that he was "rethinking the matter" (if there ever was one) ... With that said, recent concern about the topic gives me the feeling that another effort to add some "additional value" to the Macintosh-groups may be in order, especially as it seems to be true that people who have time to post observations, suggestions, and complaints often can be recruited to contribute some volunteer labour to the task at hand. But before going any further, I'd like to ask for a "show of hands" (send email to "werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu") from people who think that this is even a topic worth discussing (I'm not asking for any volunteers for anything; I just want to find out if this article was a worthwhile investment of my time or not ...)