Formally removing the group from the ISC active list will provide
wider public notification that it is no longer active. This will
reduce the chance of people inadvertently posting to the group (and
possibly becoming confused about why their posts never pass
moderation). It will also help ensure that the group is removed or
marked as read-only by news servers and gateways.
I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a rmgroup by marking
the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Am 01.12.2023 um 23:03:46 Uhr schrieb Tristan Miller:
Formally removing the group from the ISC active list will provide
wider public notification that it is no longer active. This will
reduce the chance of people inadvertently posting to the group (and
possibly becoming confused about why their posts never pass
moderation). It will also help ensure that the group is removed or
marked as read-only by news servers and gateways.
Are there still reader?
Did somebody post in those 2 years?
It was suggested that there be a two-year "cooling off" period before initiating any public discussion to formally remove the group from the
Big-8 hierarchy via an rmgroup, in part to allow extra time for any replacement moderators to come forward. However, in the last two
years, no prospective moderators have approached the the Big-8
Management Board.
Formally removing the group from the ISC active list will provide
wider public notification that it is no longer active. This will
reduce the chance of people inadvertently posting to the group (and
possibly becoming confused about why their posts never pass
moderation). It will also help ensure that the group is removed or
marked as read-only by news servers and gateways.
So for two years there has been the issue of "people inadvertently
posting to the group (and possibly becoming confused about why their
posts never pass moderation)" and now there's a reason to remove the
group? The only result will be the removal of the historical posts in
the newsgroup; I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a
rmgroup by marking the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is
even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Not that I think there are people clamoring to peruse 20-year-old Usenet material, but there are many dead moderated newsgroups and I think the consensus was that removing them is a waste of time when the discussion
was held years ago.
On Dec 2, 2023 at 6:35:13 AM CST, "Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
So for two years there has been the issue of "people inadvertently
posting to the group (and possibly becoming confused about why their
posts never pass moderation)" and now there's a reason to remove the
group? The only result will be the removal of the historical posts in
the newsgroup; I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a
rmgroup by marking the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is
even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Not that I think there are people clamoring to peruse 20-year-old Usenet
material, but there are many dead moderated newsgroups and I think the
consensus was that removing them is a waste of time when the discussion
was held years ago.
I'm building a Usenet archive and have my server setup to not automatically process rmgroup control messages, but instead mail them to me for review. Then
I set the group(s) not to allow local posts. I'm a rarity, I think.
INN has these options for a newsgroup's status that change behavior when a server receives an article:
y Local postings and articles from peers are allowed.
m The group is moderated and all postings must be approved.
n No local postings are allowed, only articles from peers.
j Articles from peers are filed in the junk group instead.
x No local postings, and articles from peers are ignored.
=foo.bar Articles are filed in the group foo.bar instead.
It would be nice if there were an automatic way to change the group's status to 'n' or 'x' from a rmgroup control message instead of removing the group, but I'm likely one of very few administrators who care to preserve old group contents.
Jesse Rehmer wrote:
On Dec 2, 2023 at 6:35:13 AM CST, "Steve Bonine" <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
So for two years there has been the issue of "people inadvertently
posting to the group (and possibly becoming confused about why their
posts never pass moderation)" and now there's a reason to remove the
group? The only result will be the removal of the historical posts in
the newsgroup; I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a
rmgroup by marking the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is
even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Not that I think there are people clamoring to peruse 20-year-old Usenet >>> material, but there are many dead moderated newsgroups and I think the
consensus was that removing them is a waste of time when the discussion
was held years ago.
I'm building a Usenet archive and have my server setup to not automatically >> process rmgroup control messages, but instead mail them to me for review. Then
I set the group(s) not to allow local posts. I'm a rarity, I think.
INN has these options for a newsgroup's status that change behavior when a >> server receives an article:
y Local postings and articles from peers are allowed.
m The group is moderated and all postings must be approved.
n No local postings are allowed, only articles from peers.
j Articles from peers are filed in the junk group instead.
x No local postings, and articles from peers are ignored.
=foo.bar Articles are filed in the group foo.bar instead.
It would be nice if there were an automatic way to change the group's status >> to 'n' or 'x' from a rmgroup control message instead of removing the group, >> but I'm likely one of very few administrators who care to preserve old group >> contents.
This is interesting information. My question is ... what is the user experience related to these status settings? Does the reader get any
notice that they cannot post to the group? Of course, this is a
somewhat unanswerable question since the user experience is determined
by the news reader, not the news server.
And yes, you are a rarity, but the moniker "runs news server" is enough
to insure that status.
Servers should return a 441 response (posting failed), at least INN's
nnrpd does, how clients interpret/display varies greatly.
The raw message returned from my server when this occurs is:
441 Postings to "some.group.not.allowed" are not allowed here
So for two years there has been the issue of "people inadvertently
posting to the group (and possibly becoming confused about why their
posts never pass moderation)" and now there's a reason to remove the
group? The only result will be the removal of the historical posts in
the newsgroup; I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a
rmgroup by marking the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is
even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Not that I think there are people clamoring to peruse 20-year-old Usenet material, but there are many dead moderated newsgroups and I think the consensus was that removing them is a waste of time when the discussion
was held years ago.
On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 06:35:13 -0600, Steve Bonine wrote:
So for two years there has been the issue of "people inadvertently
posting to the group (and possibly becoming confused about why their
posts never pass moderation)" and now there's a reason to remove the
group? The only result will be the removal of the historical posts in
the newsgroup; I've never seen a newsgroup admin who reacted to a
rmgroup by marking the group read-only. I don't know if "read only" is
even a possibility; I've never seen a newsreader that supported it.
Not that I think there are people clamoring to peruse 20-year-old Usenet
material, but there are many dead moderated newsgroups and I think the
consensus was that removing them is a waste of time when the discussion
was held years ago.
Late to the party I know, but, how about just removing the moderation and allow the group to remain, just, "open"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:52:49 |
| Calls: | 8,343 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,892,976 |