• Re: RFD: comp.lang.go - LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS

    From Rayner Lucas@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 10:34:35 2023
    In article <MPG.3f77afab4ec7931c9896c4@news.eternal-september.org>, board@big-8.org says...

    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    unmoderated group comp.lang.go

    This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go

    A summary of discussion up this this point:

    Initial informal proposal:
    <t20mgj$tjt$1@dont-email.me>

    Replies in favour: (split between news.groups.proposals and news.groups)
    meff: <t220cs$hfd$1@dont-email.me>
    Spiros Bousbouras: <zsZeFX5hmOfIR8UIh@bongo-ra.co> (not a Go programmer
    but would read it)
    John McCue: <t25gja$154$1@dont-email.me>
    a cat: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>
    John: <86wmzhkk8m.fsf@building-m.net>
    Vasco Costa: <t2sfk2$1tfh$1@gioia.aioe.org>

    Replies against:
    Adam H. Kerman would like to see more existing discussion before
    considering the creation of a new group: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>
    Steve Bonine makes a similar suggestion: <t251fv$o44$1@dont-email.me>


    First RFD:
    <u81jit$5eeu$1@dont-email.me>

    Replies in favour:
    Syber Shock: <d84d5420307f18b128e6956313cbec07$1@sybershock.com>
    a cat: <u841p2$i40b$3@dont-email.me>
    NerdRat Hispagatos: <ua19oe$bmir$1@matrix.hispagatos.org>
    yeti: <87sf96a52m.fsf@tilde.institute> (Also not a Go programmer, but
    planning to read the group at least for a while)
    Xenophon: <ucro7q$3ku21$4@dont-email.me>
    horeszko: <uctbc1$3vc7s$1@dont-email.me>

    Other replies in these threads were neutral or not directly relevant to
    whether to create the group.

    Regards,
    Rayner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to sticks on Fri Sep 22 11:41:42 2023
    On 9/22/23 12:17, sticks wrote:
    Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam and
    who to censor bothers me.  Especially here, where we have likely participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able to
    set up workable filters.  Moderated groups are far less user friendly, though certainly some people are willing to put up with it because of
    their own laziness in using filters.  Either make it
    moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when
    someone decides it's time to change.  I don't like starting a group with this uncertainty.

    Agreed, it's supposed to be the USER-net.
    --
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to board@big-8.org on Fri Sep 22 11:59:31 2023
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
    CHARTER:

    comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
    moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
    Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
    keep up with interesting projects.

    I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
    make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
    created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
    should be deleted.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sticks@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 11:17:10 2023
    On 9/22/2023 9:07 AM, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:

    CHARTER:

    comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
    moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in the
    Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each other, and
    keep up with interesting projects.

    One of your links tries to dissuade a group from being moderated.

    <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mod-pitfalls.html>

    Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam and
    who to censor bothers me. Especially here, where we have likely
    participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able to
    set up workable filters. Moderated groups are far less user friendly,
    though certainly some people are willing to put up with it because of
    their own laziness in using filters. Either make it
    moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when
    someone decides it's time to change. I don't like starting a group with
    this uncertainty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 12:25:05 2023
    Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:

    Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
    and who to censor bothers me.

    Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
    not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
    According to a programming language group, it is rather defined that
    everything that isn't about it is unwanted in that group.
    I don't think that much spam will arrive, because Google won't create
    it and therefore the spammers won't know how to post there.

    Especially here, where we have likely
    participants who are well versed in computer usage and should be able
    to set up workable filters.



    Either make it moderated/unmoderated at the start, or risk losing participants when someone decides it's time to change. I don't like
    starting a group with this uncertainty.

    I agree with that, but I advocate for non-moderated.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rek2 hispagatos@21:1/5 to Marco Moock on Fri Sep 22 14:37:22 2023
    On 2023-09-22, Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
    Am 22.09.2023 um 11:59:31 Uhr schrieb Richard Kettlewell:

    Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
    CHARTER:

    comp.lang.go will be a unmoderated group, that could be upgraded to
    moderated later if we get too much spam, where people interested in
    the Go programming language can share ideas and topics, help each
    other, and keep up with interesting projects.

    I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
    future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
    make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
    created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
    should be deleted.

    Why is there a need for moderation?
    As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
    everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
    Google care about abuse of their users.
    Instead they will receive hundreds of spam mail a day.

    Nobody can read groups on Google Groups that are filled with hundreds
    of spam messages per day, so these users also won't post via Google
    Groups.



    Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
    the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
    not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
    and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
    touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
    ways.
    Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
    just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
    open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
    point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
    just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
    guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
    up.


    ReK2
    Happy Hacking


    --
    - {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space
    - [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
    - https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 22 15:21:27 2023
    Am 22.09.2023 um 14:37:22 Uhr schrieb rek2 hispagatos:

    Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that
    was just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the
    option open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get
    to the point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will
    happen) so just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel
    better, but as you guys can see that is only in a comment not really
    how is going to end up.

    I understand that.

    I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.

    If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
    users interested in go), it can be deleted.
    But I think it should be advocated in lang groups, also in other
    hierarchies like de.* and fr.*.
    Although that can be discussed after the creation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Theo@21:1/5 to rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid on Sat Sep 23 08:48:36 2023
    rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
    Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
    the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
    not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
    and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
    touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
    ways.
    Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
    just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
    open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
    point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
    just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
    guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
    up.

    The point being it's not really possible on current Usenet infrastructure to convert an unmoderated group into a moderated one. You have to pick one or
    the other and stick with it. If you change your mind, create a new group
    with a different name and ask for deletion of the old one (or run both in parallel).

    So if you want an unmoderated group, fine. If you later decide it needs to
    be moderated, you need to go through this process again to create comp.lang.go.moderated (or whatever name).

    Therefore saying 'we could go moderated later' in the RFD doesn't make any sense because that's not an option open to a named group that starts off unmoderated. The rationale for being unmoderated is fine, it's just the
    'maybe later' statement that's troublesome.

    Theo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Marco Moock on Sat Sep 23 08:48:34 2023
    On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:
    Am 22.09.2023 um 11:41:42 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:
    Agreed, it's supposed to be the USER-net.

    Agreed, but there are some places where not all users should be able
    to post any bullshit.

    This can and has been part of the Usenet for a long time.

    Then maybe make a comp.lang.go.moderated too
    --
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid on Sat Sep 23 08:48:35 2023
    rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:
    Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
    the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
    not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
    and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
    touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
    ways.

    Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
    switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
    way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
    _different_ group.

    Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
    just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
    open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
    point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
    just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
    guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
    up.

    The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
    exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?=@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 08:48:37 2023
    Hi Marco,

    I advocate for creating that group as it is proposed - unmoderated.

    I am also in favour of creating comp.lang.go, unmoderated.

    While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move
    ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be
    useful nowadays?
    And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a
    generic one for mobile development, or their specific languages which
    currently are Kotlin and Swift)


    If there is really no traffic at all after some time (IIRC there are
    users interested in go), it can be deleted.

    Yes, removing it from the official comp.* checkgroups (as real deletion
    from every news server does not exist).


    But I think it should be advocated in lang groups, also in other
    hierarchies like de.* and fr.*.

    Point noted for fr.*; I'll forward the suggestion to the fr.* Board.
    In general, we notice that technical groups in comp.* have a broader
    audience than local ones. As there are more contributors in comp.* than
    in fr.comp.* for instance, French-speaking people tend to directly post
    in comp.* (the recent example is a contributor in fr.comp.lang.tcl who
    told us that this French-speaking newsgroup is dead, its readers all
    moved to comp.lang.ctl - <60239629$0$6192$426a74cc@news.free.fr>).

    --
    Julien ÉLIE

    « Mieux vaut prendre le changement par la main avant qu'il ne nous
    prenne par la gorge. » (Winston Churchill)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Taylor@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 10:35:29 2023
    On 23/09/2023 15:48, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
    While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be useful nowadays?
    And maybe another one for Android and iOS apps development? (either a generic one for mobile development, or their specific languages which currently are Kotlin and Swift)

    We already have:

    comp.mobile.android
    comp.mobile.ipad

    which may go some way to meeting your suggestion.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 10:35:28 2023
    Am 23.09.2023 um 08:48:35 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

    On 9/22/23 13:25, Marco Moock wrote:
    Why is there a need for moderation?
    As for the spam from Google, moderators will most likely block
    everything that comes from Google Groups until the shitheads from
    Google care about abuse of their users.

    Google will *probably* never care about Usenet, but hey there's a
    chance.

    They don't care, so I don't care about Google.

    Most interesting traffic doesn't come from Google groups, especially in
    times of thousands of spam post a day in certain groups.
    User will have to switch to another news server to be able to read the
    group.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blue-Maned_Hawk@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 23 18:34:37 2023
    Julien ÉLIE wrote:

    While we're at it and that there seems to be an impulse to make a move
    ahead for the Big-8 groups, wouldn't a comp.lang.rust group also be
    useful nowadays?

    The Rust community does not seem to me like the type of community that
    would find NNTP to be an acceptable protocol for their discussions.



    --
    Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to Hawk│/ blu.mɛin.dÊ°ak/│he/him/his/himself/
    Mr. bluemanedhawk.github.io
    We'll never succumb to carcinization!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tristan Miller@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Mon Sep 25 05:07:01 2023
    Greetings.

    On 2023-09-22 19:59, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
    make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
    should be deleted.


    Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
    to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
    Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
    to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
    charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
    would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD process.

    The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
    without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
    vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.

    Regards,
    Tristan

    --
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board
    https://www.big-8.org/
    board@big-8.org

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?=@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 07:50:50 2023
    Hi Richard,

    Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
    switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
    way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
    _different_ group.

    I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
    moderated after its creation.
    I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done at
    every news sites, but what if it is done?

    As far as I see:
    - on news servers which do not honour control articles, comp.lang.go
    won't be created, so making it moderated does not change anything;

    - on news servers which honour only newgroup control articles,
    comp.lang.go will be created, and the newgroup control article making it moderated will similarly be processed, so it's fine;

    - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
    creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
    comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
    moderated. Which implies that this unmoderated newsgroup will go on
    receiving all posted articles to it (which is fine, but unfortunately
    for their users, all the associated spam/abuse/flood/trolling/...). The
    only point would be for the "well-administered" news servers (synonym of Marco's "good tone") which have this newsgroup moderated. They would be relieved from spam (which is fine) but do not see articles posted to
    news servers which do not honour subsequent newgroup control articles
    (these articles would be refused because of lack of the Approved header
    field). I am unsure this configuration exist for news servers (but I
    may be wrong) and even if this was the case, the readers of the
    moderated newsgroup won't just see postings from other
    "non-administered" news servers. It is the only drawback, and the
    importance just depends on the point of view taken (some will say it
    does not matter at all as the contribution of the users of these "non-administered" servers are considered to be of "less quality", while
    others will say that the moderated newsgroup will miss some useful
    postings). That's a matter of point of view, but naturally if the
    readers of the moderated newsgroup prefer to read spam/flood/etc. they
    can migrate to such a news server providing them all these sorts of
    abuse. I bet that these servers which would not follow subsequent
    newgroup control articles while having accepted the first one do not
    actively fight spam/flood to provide a decent reader experience...



    The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
    exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

    I'm not really convinced the option does not exist but I may have
    overlooked something.
    Just curious :)

    Not wanting to start a long thread of arguments and counter-arguments
    here, but just trying to understand the logics behind the *real*
    drawbacks when moderating a posteriori a newsgroup, as several people
    here spoke about.

    --
    Julien ÉLIE

    « Open the black window and type text, to fix the network. »

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rek2 hispagatos@21:1/5 to Tristan Miller on Mon Sep 25 09:49:15 2023
    On 2023-09-25, Tristan Miller <tmiller@big-8.org> wrote:
    Greetings.

    On 2023-09-22 19:59, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    I don’t think changing moderation status is very practical. If (in the
    future) a moderated group seems like a good idea (and the resources to
    make it work are available) a separate comp.lang.go.moderated could be
    created. i.e. I think the clause about a potential change in status
    should be deleted.


    Back in July we advised the RFD's proponent about the impracticality of changing the moderation status of a group, but it seems they decided not
    to revise this clause of the RFD before submitting it for voting.
    Speaking personally, I'm not bothered about the clause as I consider it
    to be ineffective and therefore not binding. That is, the group's
    charter notwithstanding, any subsequent change in moderation status
    would not be automatic but rather would have to go through a formal RFD process.

    The proponent is of course free to withdraw the RFD and resubmit it
    without the problematic moderation clause. Otherwise the Board will
    vote on the RFD as-is on Friday, 29 September.

    Regards,
    Tristan




    Hello Tristan,
    As you mention is just a comment as an idea, that makes no difference
    because is submited a un-moderated, not sure why is creating so much
    fush, but if people feel happier if we remove it then I guess we can
    remove it? the only reason I said to not remove it at first was to
    speed things up since is my first time submitting RFD's and I been
    struggling a bit with it, good thing someone else from this newsgroup
    is helping me.

    So if everyone wants us to remove it, beat it, as I said it makes no
    difference to have it or not. Just whatever it makes everyone happier
    I just wanted to speed the process a bit by not removing it.


    Happy Hacking
    ReK2


    --
    - {gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org - mastodon: @rek2@hispagatos.space
    - [https|gemini]://2600.Madrid - https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
    - https://keyoxide.org/A31C7CE19D9C58084EA42BA26C0B0D11E9303EC5

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 10:04:00 2023
    Am 25.09.2023 um 07:50:50 Uhr schrieb Julien ÉLIE:

    I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
    moderated after its creation.
    I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
    at every news sites, but what if it is done?

    People will post in the group on a server that hasn't changed it to
    moderated and the post will not reach the moderation.

    As far as I see:
    - on news servers which do not honour control articles, comp.lang.go
    won't be created, so making it moderated does not change anything;

    True, but there might be servers that create it and will not change it
    to moderated, even if the probability is very, very low.
    I don't think that this will be a real situation.

    - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
    creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
    comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is moderated. Which implies that this unmoderated newsgroup will go on receiving all posted articles to it (which is fine, but unfortunately
    for their users, all the associated spam/abuse/flood/trolling/...).

    The users will most likely killfile such servers. Take Google Groups as
    an example.

    The only point would be for the "well-administered" news servers
    (synonym of Marco's "good tone") which have this newsgroup moderated.
    They would be relieved from spam (which is fine) but do not see
    articles posted to news servers which do not honour subsequent
    newgroup control articles (these articles would be refused because of
    lack of the Approved header field).

    True. But that is the case when admins don't honor the decisions of the
    big 8 board.
    Good servers do it, so for the vast majority of users it is not a
    problem.

    I am unsure this configuration exist for news servers (but I may be
    wrong) and even if this was the case, the readers of the moderated
    newsgroup won't just see postings from other "non-administered" news
    servers. It is the only drawback, and the importance just depends on
    the point of view taken (some will say it does not matter at all as
    the contribution of the users of these "non-administered" servers are considered to be of "less quality", while others will say that the
    moderated newsgroup will miss some useful postings).

    True, but the vast majority of good content comes from well
    administrated servers.
    The probability that servers will create comp.lang.go, but don't change
    it to moderated, is very, very low, so I think it is only theoretical
    problem.

    That's a matter of point of view, but naturally if the readers of the moderated
    newsgroup prefer to read spam/flood/etc. they can migrate to such a
    news server providing them all these sorts of abuse.

    Full ack. Simply think about Mixmin and dizum.
    How much valuable content does come from them?

    I bet that these servers which would not follow subsequent newgroup
    control articles while having accepted the first one do not actively
    fight spam/flood to provide a decent reader experience...

    I don't think that that situation will occur.

    The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
    exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

    I'm not really convinced the option does not exist but I may have
    overlooked something.

    Technically, it would be possible, but practically it would be hard to
    reach the goal.

    I advocate in removing the possibility of a future moderation for it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 12:25:42 2023
    Am 25.09.2023 um 09:49:15 Uhr schrieb rek2 hispagatos:

    So if everyone wants us to remove it, beat it, as I said it makes no difference to have it or not. Just whatever it makes everyone happier
    I just wanted to speed the process a bit by not removing it.

    I advocate to remove it from the RfD.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Prins@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Mon Sep 25 12:43:32 2023
    On 2023-09-23 14:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:
    Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
    the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
    not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
    and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
    touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
    ways.

    Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
    switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
    way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
    _different_ group.

    Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
    just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
    open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
    point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
    just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
    guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
    up.

    The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
    exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

    It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

    Robert
    --
    Robert AH Prins
    robert(a)prino(d)org
    The hitchhiking grandfather - https://prino.neocities.org/
    Some REXX code for use on z/OS - https://prino.neocities.org/zOS/zOS-Tools.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Robert Prins on Mon Sep 25 12:56:53 2023
    On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
    It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

    Robert

    And did it work?
    --
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid on Mon Sep 25 12:56:45 2023
    Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

    - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
    creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
    configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
    comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
    moderated.

    Historically, the concern was that there were a lot of news servers that
    were otherwise well-administered (not large sources of spam, for instance)
    but that never honored control messages of any kind, and instead just
    added groups on user request. A user would request the group be added, it
    is added as unmoderated, it's then made moderated, nothing ever changes on
    that server, and local users post into a void and may not realize that
    their posts are being dropped.

    I don't know how likely this is any more. Usenet is a much smaller place
    than it used to be.

    --
    Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Russ Allbery on Mon Sep 25 13:05:30 2023
    On 9/25/23 13:56, Russ Allbery wrote:
    Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:

    - on news servers which honour the newgroup control article for its
    creation but not subsequent newgroup control articles (does such a
    configuration exist?), well we'll end up with an unmoderated
    comp.lang.go newsgroups on these servers whereas its true status is
    moderated.

    Historically, the concern was that there were a lot of news servers that
    were otherwise well-administered (not large sources of spam, for instance) but that never honored control messages of any kind, and instead just
    added groups on user request. A user would request the group be added, it
    is added as unmoderated, it's then made moderated, nothing ever changes on that server, and local users post into a void and may not realize that
    their posts are being dropped.

    I don't know how likely this is any more. Usenet is a much smaller place than it used to be.


    Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new status?
    Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup that every
    server should have maybe?
    --
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Russ Allbery@21:1/5 to no@thanks.net on Mon Sep 25 13:16:30 2023
    candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> writes:

    Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new status?
    Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup that every
    server should have maybe?

    Yeah, I would expect there to be a bunch of posts to the group itself
    about the moderation status change, which given how small Usenet is these
    days may well be sufficient to get things sorted out.

    --
    Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spiros Bousbouras@21:1/5 to no@thanks.net on Mon Sep 25 14:17:27 2023
    On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:56:53 CST
    candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
    On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
    It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

    Robert

    And did it work?

    I just checked and comp.lang.asm.x86 is doing fine. Also comp.ai changed from unmoderated to moderated several years ago.

    Anyway , I think this is a very minor issue and not worthy of so much discussion. The real question is whether a comp.lang.go group would get any (legitimate) posts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 14:32:09 2023
    Am 25.09.2023 um 12:56:53 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

    On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
    It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more
    than) a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts
    of spam and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

    Robert

    And did it work?

    Seems so.

    https://comp.lang.asm.x86.narkive.com/

    Even messages from Google groups came in (Message-ID) and were approved
    by the moderation software, so it seems that they even Google processed
    the changes in the past.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marco Moock@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 25 14:26:46 2023
    Am 25.09.2023 um 13:05:30 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

    Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new
    status? Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup
    that every server should have maybe?

    Normally, the control messages have that purpose and hierarchy changes
    are being discussed and announced in admin groups too, like here for
    big 8.
    The RfD is also posted in a group and most times in relevant groups
    too, so there is a high probability that admins and users know about
    the changes if they want to.

    There are also servers that aren't administered anymore, either by the
    software version of by the hierarchy.

    Most likely nobody cares anymore in that case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Marco Moock on Mon Sep 25 17:10:56 2023
    On 9/25/23 15:26, Marco Moock wrote:
    Am 25.09.2023 um 13:05:30 Uhr schrieb candycanearter07:

    Maybe there could be a normal message sent notifying of the new
    status? Then it might be caught by a user. Or is there a newsgroup
    that every server should have maybe?

    Normally, the control messages have that purpose and hierarchy changes
    are being discussed and announced in admin groups too, like here for
    big 8.
    The RfD is also posted in a group and most times in relevant groups
    too, so there is a high probability that admins and users know about
    the changes if they want to.

    There are also servers that aren't administered anymore, either by the software version of by the hierarchy.

    Most likely nobody cares anymore in that case.

    Fair enough.
    --
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid on Tue Sep 26 05:33:23 2023
    Julien ÉLIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> writes:
    Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
    switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
    way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
    _different_ group.

    I'm just curious about what would go wrong if comp.lang.go is made
    moderated after its creation.
    I'm of course OK that there is no "reliable way" to ensure it is done
    at every news sites, but what if it is done?

    It’s the unreliability of getting the status changed everywhere it
    exists that concerns me. Servers that ignore all control messages or
    honor all (signed) control messages wouldn’t be a problem; it’s those
    with a less consistent policy (e.g. admin acts on changes their users
    request, and nothing else) that leads to the problem.

    The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
    to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
    they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
    happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.

    I don’t know how widespread the issue would be but it’s easy to avoid
    (i.e. by creating new groups instead of trying to change existing ones).


    In principle having separate moderated groups also addresses some
    people’s objections to moderation. In practice (at least based on
    experience in uk.*) they complain incessantly even when unmoderated counterparts exist, so there’s no real benefit to pandering to them.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Xenophon@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 26 16:20:25 2023
    I remain in favour.

    Seems obviously necessary.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mima-sama@21:1/5 to Xenophon on Wed Sep 27 00:18:08 2023
    On 9/27/2023 06:20, Xenophon wrote:
    Seems obviously necessary.

    "Obviously necessary" because?

    Are people seriously discussing about Golang and its projects in Usenet?
    If so, in which newsgroups? Is this *existing* discussion, if there's
    any and I still haven't seen anyone prove yet despite plenty of people supporting this RFD for some reason, causing problems to existing
    newsgroups such that it warrants the "obvious" qualifier?

    --
    Mima
    Reincarnated Legendary Evil Spirit of Complete Darkness

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Mima-sama on Wed Sep 27 09:21:36 2023
    Mima-sama <mi@masa.ma> writes:
    On 9/27/2023 06:20, Xenophon wrote:
    Seems obviously necessary.

    "Obviously necessary" because?

    Are people seriously discussing about Golang and its projects in Usenet?
    If so, in which newsgroups? Is this *existing* discussion, if there's
    any and I still haven't seen anyone prove yet despite plenty of people supporting this RFD for some reason, causing problems to existing
    newsgroups such that it warrants the "obvious" qualifier?

    Someone’s been doing some Go NNTP work and talking about from time to
    time in one of the news.* groups.

    Anyway the group would be harmless even if it does turn out to be
    essentially unused (which is already the case for huge numbers of
    groups).

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mima-sama@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Wed Sep 27 11:16:07 2023
    On 9/27/2023 23:21, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    Someone’s been doing some Go NNTP work and talking about from time to
    time in one of the news.* groups.

    Ok. news.software.nntp. I'm not sure why nobody else supporting the
    group creation has been using that group to prove that Golang deserves a
    group of is own, but okay.

    Still it doesn't fulfill the 10 posts/day over 90 days guideline which
    is used to determine whether there's enough traffic about a topic such
    that it should be split off to its own newsgroup, so I'm afraid I still
    have to oppose.

    Anyway the group would be harmless even if it does turn out to be
    essentially unused (which is already the case for huge numbers of
    groups).

    Harmless to you perhaps. But an abandoned newsgroup would mean yet
    another failure by the Big-8 to make the use of Usenet relevant for a
    topic. Which isn't really a good look for the rest of Usenet. I'd rather
    Big-8 newgroup a topic we are definitely sure would have self-sustaining discussion. And we can only get that kind of topic by guiding newbies
    into the broader but relevant newsgroups (whether they're Big-8 or
    alt.*) which actually badly need that activity. Not by spoonfeeding them specific newgroups with relatively little effort.

    --
    Mima
    Reincarnated Legendary Evil Spirit of Complete Darkness

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Prins@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 30 10:13:48 2023
    On 2023-09-25 18:56, candycanearter07 wrote:
    On 9/25/23 13:43, Robert Prins wrote:
    It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than) a
    couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam and
    off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

    Robert

    And did it work?

    Yes, it's been completely spam-free, and has been like that for many, many years.

    Robert
    --
    Robert AH Prins
    robert(a)prino(d)org
    The hitchhiking grandfather - https://prino.neocities.org/
    Some REXX code for use on z/OS - https://prino.neocities.org/zOS/zOS-Tools.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Theo@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Sat Sep 30 13:27:35 2023
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
    to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
    they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
    happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.

    I wonder if you could have a bot that listens for postings without the
    approval header and emails the sender to let them know. It would probably
    end up replying to a lot of spam, but maybe you could restrict it to replies
    on existing threads (which spammers also do, but to a lesser extent).

    No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.

    Theo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Theo on Sat Sep 30 14:40:28 2023
    Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    The outcome is that posts generated on out-of-date servers aren’t sent
    to the moderator software, and are dropped on updated servers because
    they lack the approval header. Effectively the posts aren’t propagated
    properly and the users don’t get any direct feedback that this is
    happening - they just chatter unknowingly into the void.

    I wonder if you could have a bot that listens for postings without the approval header and emails the sender to let them know. It would
    probably end up replying to a lot of spam, but maybe you could
    restrict it to replies on existing threads (which spammers also do,
    but to a lesser extent).

    It’d only work if it was transitively connected to the impacted user
    by a path considered the group unmoderated throughout. So I don’t think that’s really practical.

    No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
    tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.

    I don’t think I considered “lack of hypothetical notifications about equally hypothetical misconfigured news servers” when I made that
    decision l-)

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From candycanearter07@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Sun Oct 1 21:44:00 2023
    On 9/30/23 15:40, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
    No help if people post with invalid email addresses, but that's the
    tradeoff you make when choosing to post that way.

    I don’t think I considered “lack of hypothetical notifications about equally hypothetical misconfigured news servers” when I made that
    decision l-)


    Agreed.
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)