lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) (10/28/90)
In article <1990Oct26.165109.29072@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: =In article <89668@aerospace.AERO.ORG> obrien@aero.aero.org (Michael O'Brien) writes: =>There is only one set of meaningful questions to be asked: What happens =>when one site marks a group as unmoderated and feeds articles to a site =>that has it marked as moderated? Do such messages become accepted, and =>fed to the remainder of the net? What happens under B News? C News? = =Under C News, the message is dropped on the floor, with a log message. =I believe B News attempts to mail it to the moderator, a behavior which =has not endeared itself to moderators. While I have sympathy for moderators, I'm not entirely happy with the C News approach. If a site has a group set wrong, which is easy nowadays, and all of their connections use C News, postings will disappear silently. Perhaps there is a better solution. One could be to mail a warning to the poster. Any other ideas? -- Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/28/90)
In article <1990Oct28.002345.11093@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: >=I believe B News attempts to mail it to the moderator, a behavior which >=has not endeared itself to moderators. > >While I have sympathy for moderators, I'm not entirely happy with the C >News approach. If a site has a group set wrong, which is easy nowadays, >and all of their connections use C News, postings will disappear silently. >Perhaps there is a better solution. One could be to mail a warning to the >poster. Any other ideas? The problem with *any* scheme involving automatic mail sending from a remote site is that a simple mistake can deluge an innocent user -- often not the person responsible for the foulup -- with mail from everywhere. A better solution *would* be nice. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
liz@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Liz Allen) (11/01/90)
lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: >While I have sympathy for moderators, I'm not entirely happy with the C >News approach. If a site has a group set wrong, which is easy nowadays, >and all of their connections use C News, postings will disappear silently. >Perhaps there is a better solution. One could be to mail a warning to the >poster. Any other ideas? I gave this some thought after having some problems on grian. I think the best approach is to look at the length of the path and mail articles only if it is short -- say less than 1-2 hosts. This would limit the number of forwarded articles while insuring that at least one copy got out. -- - Liz Allen liz@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ames!elroy!grian!liz "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." -- 1 John 1:5b
louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) (11/01/90)
I must applaud C news for doing what I think is the correct thing with unapproved new articles in moderated newsgroups. If you're ever in the position of maintaining a mailing list which is gatewayed to a USENET newsgroup, this is the friendly thing to do. When the comp.protocols.time.ntp newsgroup was created, it was un-moderated. Unfortunately, an incorrect checkgroups message followed a few days later with the group marked as moderated, and with the mailing list address listed as the moderator's address. Chaos ensued, with articles looping and appearing on the mailing list over and over again. If B news had the same behavior, then the brokeness caused by the incorrect checkgroups would not have been so.. painful. louie