jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (03/11/91)
In the referenced message, news%wolves@cs.duke.edu (News Administrator @ Wolves) wrote: }alt.sources does not need a moderator, nor even the self-moderation of }alt.hackers (despite the stupidity of the rutgers auto-approving gateway). Ya know, what I came up with the idea of self-moderation, I was in fact thinking of alt.sources. I guess alt.hackers could be considered a testbed. How about it? What if alt.sources was moderated, with the moderators address pointing to an auto-replyer that sends back a little blurb? --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." -- the United States Constitution
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (03/18/91)
Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > How about it? What if alt.sources was moderated, with the moderators > address pointing to an auto-replyer that sends back a little blurb? In order to prevent the rash of complaints similar to those we've had in alt.hackers, you'd need an *additional* fallback address which is documented in the blurb. Just because current Unix systems let you forge approval doesn't mean that all news systems will necessarily continue to do so, and some public access systems (like one I used to run :-( ) don't give the user adequate access. The fallbnack address could either be an auto approval gateway that checks for source (e.g. to make sure the Subject: like has no Re: and that the source text contains the string "THIS IS SOURCE, DAMMIT" or something like that.) or, if you don't trust this approach, to provide a real human volunteer moderator. Yes, this means that those who can't forge get a delay. I think this is a reasonable compromise. But I'm not volunteering to be the moderator. Mail to the UKNet is far too expensive. -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (03/19/91)
In the referenced message, ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) wrote: }In order to prevent the rash of complaints similar to those we've }had in alt.hackers, you'd need an *additional* fallback address }which is documented in the blurb. Just because current Unix systems let you }forge approval doesn't mean that all news systems will necessarily continue }to do so, and some public access systems (like one I used to run :-( ) }don't give the user adequate access. Well, there are lots and lots of ways to get an article into a moderated newsgroup, but what's appropriate for alt.hackers isn't appropriate for alt.sources. T. William Wells sent me email along these lines too. He suggested that the moderator's address point to a program that says something like this: Thank you for posting to alt.sources. This newsgroup is for posting source code only but there is no one checking to see that what is posted is really source. Since not everyone knows that only source code should be posted here, I, the alt.sources moderator-daemon, have been programmed to occasionally remind the posters to this newsgroup that they should only post source. I've recorded who you are and won't be bothering you again for at least one month. If you'd like to shut me up completely, send me a message at alt-sources-daemon@wherever.com saying "ignore user@dom.ain" and I will never send a message to that address again. Again, thank you for posting, and happy coding! The wording could use a little tweaking, for instance to make it clearer that the article *has* been posted, but I think the basic idea is great. Bill also pointed out that the auto-posting daemon could make sure the followup-to line is pointing to alt.sources.d, or at least away from alt.sources. I would add verbiage inviting people to self-moderate if they want to avoid the (minimal) delay and (unknown) fragility of the daemon. This plus a weekly informational posting would, I think, solve the alt.sources problem once and for all. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef "When the well's dry, we know the worth of water." -- Ben Franklin
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/20/91)
Six new messages in alt.sources today, and all six were non-source postings... a record. Worst was the "I changed distribution back to alt.sources because the correct TRS-80 minimal basic program is '1!'" Sheesh! -- -- "If it ain't too broke, don't fix it." -- me, with apologies to Bert Lantz Save Twin Peaks!!
emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (03/20/91)
In article <LV3A2.5@ny1.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
Six new messages in alt.sources today, and all six were non-source postings...
a record. Worst was the "I changed distribution back to alt.sources because
the correct TRS-80 minimal basic program is '1!'" Sheesh!
but comp.sources.unix is alive again, so the net amount of sources is
still quite high.
--
Msen Edward Vielmetti
/|--- moderator, comp.archives
emv@msen.comskrenta@amix.commodore.com (Rich Skrenta) (03/20/91)
alt.source does seem to have become a swamp of "Please send me FOO" requests.
jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
[nifty moderator-daemon message]
I really like the message. You don't need to moderate alt.sources to
use it, however. Just set it up now on your machine and have it watch
/usr/spool/news/alt/sources. The "shut me up completely" by mailing
to the daemon can still work, too.
Rich
--
skrenta@amix.commodore.comxanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (03/20/91)
Jef, If you have a human in a diversion loop for the automoderator, it would be nice to enforce the existance in the article of the Archive-Name entry; the biggest negative of alt.sources is not the stray non-source postings, but the difficulty of organizing the archives without some namespace control. Credit this idea to Peter da Silva. It might also be nice if there were a way to ping the root/postmaster/usenet address at the site of origin exactly once to remind the sysadmin that group alt.sources.d should be carried wherever alt.sources is. With no data, I can only envisage that part of the misplaced discussion traffic is originating at sites with no subscription to the discussion subgroup. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (03/20/91)
In article <23674@well.sf.ca.us> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
[ daemon moderation stuff deleted ]
Any reason why this requires a moderated newsgroup? Why not just set up
the daemon to monitor the current newsgroup? That way there is no need
to change the group and some site admin with SFB can't decide to get around
the moderation by setting up their own system. The only difference that
I see is that the follow-up can't be automatically changed but that really
isn't the biggest problem in the group now.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 |jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer) (03/22/91)
In the referenced message, darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) wrote: }Any reason why this requires a moderated newsgroup? Why not just set up }the daemon to monitor the current newsgroup? That way there is no need }to change the group and some site admin with SFB can't decide to get around }the moderation by setting up their own system. The only difference that }I see is that the follow-up can't be automatically changed but that really }isn't the biggest problem in the group now. Right. Rich Skrenta pointed this out too. I suppose the daemon could take a "Followup-To: alt.sources.d" as evidence that the poster didn't need a reminder. Lest anyone claim this is just the same old form-letter-flame system we have now, the significant difference is that there would be precisely one site doing this. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {apple, ucbvax, hplabs}!well!jef WARNING: PROPER USE REQUIRES EXPERT INSTRUCTION
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) (03/22/91)
From the keyboard of Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us>: :Lest anyone claim this is just the same old form-letter-flame system :we have now, the significant difference is that there would be precisely :one site doing this. Well, perhaps, but as it is now, they sure get the message. :-) And it's NOT a flame -- it's a reminder service. --tom