laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/21/86)
I keep getting mail about ``why don't you update your moderators file''?
To stave off further mail -- I think that my moderators file is just
fine. And I still can't follow-up an article in mod.computers.workstations
and get the article sent to the moderator.
And I found this gem in net.news.b with no indication it was posted to
any other newsgroup. I think that the ``mod groups don't work'' problem
is more than a problem with bnews.
-------------------
>From: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright)
Newsgroups: net.news.b
Subject: Re: Proposed new mechanism for posting to moderated groups
Message-ID: <273@stl.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 86 20:43:28 GMT
Date-Received: 21 Feb 86 06:24:31 GMT
References: <478@kepler.UUCP> <247@maynard.UUCP> <9177@amdcad.UUCP> <122@jpusa1.UUCP> <9283@amdcad.UUCP> <503@hoptoad.uucp> <675@oliveb.UUCP>
Reply-To: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright)
Organization: STL,Harlow,UK.
Lines: 36
I think the suggestion (to have a standard route back to a backbone
site for all moderators) is an excellent one - it would really solve
the problems I've been having - and which I guess many others have
too. I just hope someone can find a way to do it WITHOUT all sites
needing new software!
You may remember my carrying out a vote for net.vms, eventually 97:7 in favour
(plus a few more late YES's and also "Now I've lost the vote, I look
forward to seeing net.vms after all"'s from two of the "No"'s).
But Gene Spafford suggested that with the change from fa.xxx to mod.xxx people
could all use mod.computer.vax instead of creating yet another net. group.
As he knows more about these things than I do, and clearly the net couldn't
stand any more groups (that was several new groups ago, but that's another
matter!), so we all waited for mod.computers.vax - and very useful it's been.
BUT for the six months since then, I have NEVER succeded in posting ANYTHING
to mod.computer.anything. Initially the new moderators had been left out of
the local tables, but since then the problem has been getting to .ARPA. I
cannot. No Way. Yes yes I know there are routes to seismo etc. which get
gatewayed into .ARPA (indeed I used to get them to work 1/2 the time once).
But now all local .ARPA traffic gets routed via the UK Usenet-ARPA gateway,
and I (or maybe this site?) am "not authorised" to post through that gateway.
And because my mail has to go through 2-3 "intelligent" mail routers to get
out of the UK, all attemps to 'get round' the UK problem are either re-routed
to the UK gateway or else returned as "unknown domain".
I have had useful info to post to mod.computer.vax (e.g. how about a
comparison table showing ALL the VAX's to 8800 incl., which would clear
up some of the confusion about the new VAX announcement). But I can't
get through.
If it is not possible to route all moderator's mail via the backbone
sites then can an alternative "pure" uucp address be given for all
moderators, presumably 'aliassed' via a suitable ARPA route at some
site which CAN get to the gateways? This would be REALLY HELPFUL.
-------------------
Me -- I'd like to see the vax table. i wonder how many other people
have things that I would like to see but can't post them either...
Laura
--
Laura Creighton
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura
laura@lll-crg.arpamsc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (02/21/86)
> I keep getting mail about ``why don't you update your moderators file''? > To stave off further mail -- I think that my moderators file is just > fine. And I still can't follow-up an article in mod.computers.workstations > and get the article sent to the moderator. > > <includes article supporting the claim> > >From: dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) > Newsgroups: net.news.b > Subject: Re: Proposed new mechanism for posting to moderated groups > > <lines deleted> > > BUT for the six months since then, I have NEVER succeded in posting ANYTHING > to mod.computer.anything. Initially the new moderators had been left out of > the local tables, but since then the problem has been getting to .ARPA. I > cannot. No Way. Yes yes I know there are routes to seismo etc. which get > gatewayed into .ARPA (indeed I used to get them to work 1/2 the time once). > But now all local .ARPA traffic gets routed via the UK Usenet-ARPA gateway, > and I (or maybe this site?) am "not authorised" to post through that gateway. > And because my mail has to go through 2-3 "intelligent" mail routers to get > out of the UK, all attemps to 'get round' the UK problem are either re-routed > to the UK gateway or else returned as "unknown domain". > > <lines deleted> > > If it is not possible to route all moderator's mail via the backbone > sites then can an alternative "pure" uucp address be given for all > moderators, presumably 'aliassed' via a suitable ARPA route at some > site which CAN get to the gateways? This would be REALLY HELPFUL. > ------------------- > There is a "pure" uucp address to an arpa site. It is of the form your!path!to!seismo!somewhere.arpa!someone I think this would make it through any intelligent router unchanged except perhaps to optimize the path to seismo. Only a gateway would bother to decode the somewhere.arpa. At least 2 gateways, seismo and ucbvax, understand this address syntax. Of course .arpa doesn't really exist anymore. It's more like ".edu" or ".gov" these days. Instructions for all this are given in the moderators file posted every month by gatech!spaf. I've never had any trouble posting to the moderators, though I do subscribe mostly to usenet based groups. However I have sucessfully posted to mod.telecom (an arpa based group) by simply using postnews. My article got sent to the right place. I run news 2.10.2. The problem I have with the mod groups is replying the the author of a given article using the 'r' command. This is an impossible problem with digests which is only one reason why I dislike them. With non- digested mod groups it depends on the moderator. Some take care to see that the "From:" line reflects the author. With some it always shows the moderator's address. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc "Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/22/86)
In article <1934@saber.UUCP> msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) writes: > >The problem I have with the mod groups is replying to the author of >a given article using the 'r' command. This is an impossible problem >with digests which is only one reason why I dislike them. With non- >digested mod groups it depends on the moderator. Some take care to see >that the "From:" line reflects the author. With some it always shows >the moderator's address. The difficulty of replying to a digest in a moderated newsgroup is not a problem with the concept of mod groups but mostly with stubborn Internet mailing list moderators who refuse to send letters out one at a time as a special case for USENET. They are serving their first and primary audience, the Internet community, who prefer digests. Before USENET had mod groups, Internet mailing lists were gatewayed into fa.all groups, which were also digested or not, at the whim of the Internet moderator. The introduction of mod groups has not made the digest situation any worse. In fact, I think some mailing lists (telecom, for example) changed from digested to undigested as seen on USENET thanks to the efforts of Erik Fair, who while converting the mailing lists from fa.all to mod.all also found time to persuade some mailing list moderators to convert. I happen to hate digests with a strong passion, but let's not blame it on mod groups. -- Noah, this is God speaking. I'm going to make it rain for forty days and forty nights. In California. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
chen@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (02/23/86)
In article <1934@saber.UUCP>, msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) writes: > There is a "pure" uucp address to an arpa site. It is of the form > > your!path!to!seismo!somewhere.arpa!someone > > I think this would make it through any intelligent router unchanged except > perhaps to optimize the path to seismo. Unfortunately, this may not be the case. The sendmails here at gatech for example (whose .cf files are in the mod.sources archives), will take an address of the form site1!...!arpa-gateway!site.arpa!someone and turn it into someone@site.arpa and then try and route it using local routing tables. If the route given by the table doesn't work, you're out of luck. Ray Chen gatech!gitpyr!chen
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (02/25/86)
In article <1458@gitpyr.UUCP> chen@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) writes: >Unfortunately, this may not be the case. The sendmails here at gatech for >example (whose .cf files are in the mod.sources archives), will take an >address of the form site1!...!arpa-gateway!site.arpa!someone and turn >it into someone@site.arpa and then try and route it using local routing >tables. If the route given by the table doesn't work, you're out >of luck. Uh, I don't know what system Ray is thinking of, but the sendmail files here are configured so as *NOT* to do the above. Instead, when presented with a address like that, the mail will get passed to the uucp mailer for delivery via uucp mail to "arpa-gateway". If anyone out there in netland ever sees any *uucp* mail passing through "gatech" which does something different, I'd love to see it. I've put long hours into getting the sendmail.cf files to behave properly in such circumstances. -- Gene "writing furiously" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332-0280 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) (02/25/86)
> In article <9825@amdcad.UUCP> pn@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > [A long lecture on mod groups, history thereof and the arpanet origins > of some of them. Deleted to save your brain. -- saber!msc] Thanks for the lecture Phil. :-) I already knew all that. When I said: > >This is an impossible problem with digests which is only one reason > >why I dislike them. "them" referred to digests not mod groups. Please read my words again. To state my position more clearly 1. I like mod groups, especially mod.sources. Their benefits outweigh the inconveniences of reaching the authors. Both moderated and unmoderated groups have their place on usenet. 2. I hate digests but will tolerate them when I find the material worth my while (mod.risks) but will absolutely not tolerate them when they grow to ridiculous lengths (mod.computers.sun). 3. I like to be able to reply to the authors of the articles not the moderators. Moderators should ensure the "From:" line contains the authors name not the moderators name. This can be done by both arpanet and usenet moderators. Just because "it's always been so" is no reason not to say "it could be better". If Erik, or people who badgered him, didn't think "it could be better" he wouldn't have asked the moderator of mod.telecom to send him individual messages rather than the digest. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@saber.uucp, sun!saber!msc@decwrl.dec.com ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!msc "Boards are long and hard and made of wood"
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/27/86)
In article <1937@saber.UUCP> msc@saber.UUCP (Mark Callow) writes: >Just because "it's always been so" is no reason not to say "it could >be better". If Erik, or people who badgered him, didn't think "it could >be better" he wouldn't have asked the moderator of mod.telecom to send >him individual messages rather than the digest. You make it sound as though all Erik had to do was ask, since it worked for mod.telecom. In fact, Erik asked a lot of Internet moderators but only a few were willing to change. It could indeed be better but it's not in the hands of USENET people anymore. You can either decide your principles are more important than the information in the digests, or go badger the Internet moderators yourself. I think Erik has done his share already. -- The Hyundai is faster than speeding molasses! Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (03/11/86)
At last after many attempts, and hitting our local news administrator a few times (no, not literally, he'd hit back!), I managed to get a message into mod.computer.vax (the VAX table I promised people). But since then I've had my message (the same one, not re-mailings) returned 5 times from various places in the ARPAnet as 'undeliverable' for various reasons. One objection to mod. groups is that messages from Europe have to cross the Atlantic twice - I didn't know the count was 7! Is this sort of thing normal on the ARPAnet? It's certainly very confusing. It probably explains why so many people post the same message twice - they get the 'undelivered' massage and believe it.