newsgroup administators Jargon

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by jw 1111, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. jw 1111

    jw 1111 Guest

    I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.

    I then received this following message from the administrators of that group
    which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
    politely for an explanation.

    This is what they sent me:

    "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."

    What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    thanks
     
    jw 1111, Mar 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jw 1111

    Toolman Tim Guest

    In news:M7lTf.11496$,
    jw 1111 spewed forth:
    > I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    > subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >
    > I then received this following message from the administrators of
    > that group which i don't understand and I also received no response,
    > when i asked politely for an explanation.
    >
    > This is what they sent me:
    >
    > "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    > no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    > newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    > Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >
    > What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    > thanks


    Sure - next time you create or reply to a post, (since you're using OE)
    click on View, All headers, and put your selected newsgroup (where you are
    most likely to go read replies) in the Reply-To: field.

    --
    The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
     
    Toolman Tim, Mar 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jw 1111

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    > subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >
    > I then received this following message from the administrators of that
    > group
    > which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
    > politely for an explanation.
    >
    > This is what they sent me:
    >
    > "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    > no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    > newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    > Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >
    > What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    > thanks


    Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more than one
    newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the message
    separately to each group where it's relevant.
     
    Rich Wilson, Mar 19, 2006
    #3
  4. jw 1111

    jw 1111 Guest

    "Rich Wilson" <> wrote in message
    news:0dlTf.7561$...
    >
    > "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    > news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >>I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    >> subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >>
    >> I then received this following message from the administrators of that
    >> group
    >> which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
    >> politely for an explanation.
    >>
    >> This is what they sent me:
    >>
    >> "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    >> no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    >> newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    >> Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >>
    >> What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    >> thanks

    >
    > Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more than one
    > newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the message
    > separately to each group where it's relevant.


    Many thanks to all replies. Why do they get wound up about it ?
    >
    >
     
    jw 1111, Mar 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Rich Wilson wrote:

    > Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the message
    > separately to each group where it's relevant.


    No it isn't. Why create double/triple work for the respondents?

    http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 19, 2006
    #5
  6. jw 1111

    Vanguard Guest

    "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    > subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >
    > I then received this following message from the administrators of that
    > group
    > which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
    > politely for an explanation.
    >
    > This is what they sent me:
    >
    > "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    > no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    > newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    > Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >
    > What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    > thanks



    If you post the SAME message to multiple RELATED newsgroups then you should
    cross-post. Keep the number of groups to under 4 (as it is pretty difficult
    to find *related* newsgroups numbering more than that). Don't post in a
    parent group and then to every subtopic group under the parent. Keep your
    post on-topic for each group. Cross-posting is bad when it is abused.
    Well, gee, so is water if you drown someone in it rather than give them the
    glass of water that they asked for.

    Cross-posting allows readers in each group to see replies from all
    respondents in the other groups to which you cross-posted. That means they
    do not have to waste their time posting duplicated messages. It is curteous
    to use cross-posting so other users can view the threads in their own "home"
    group and not get forced to go subscribe to someone else's home group.

    Cross-posting also reduces disk space. Every multi-posted copy of a message
    is a, well, separate copy. Multi-posting a message to 4 groups means you
    sent 4 copies of your message rather than just one copy. Doesn't sound like
    much until you take into account any attachments in the message along with
    the fact that your posts will propagate to every other NNTP server worldwide
    so the aggregate total of disk space is a lot larger. Cross-posting submits
    just one copy of the message to your NNTP server with links to it in the
    other cross-posted groups. You've reduced the overheard of your post.

    For those users that may visit some or all of the other groups to which you
    cross-posted, they will not have to bother rereading your same message. If
    they read it in one group, it will get marked as read when they visit
    another group with that same cross-posted message. Again, you are being
    courteous.

    The use of the FollowUp-To header is when some joker thinks their newsgroups
    is the only newsgroup to which you should've posted. It yanks everyone
    replies to their "home" group which means the respondent won't even see
    their own post in the group that THEY visit. If I reply to a cross-posted
    message in *my* home group, I expect to see my reply there. It is very rude
    to yank it somewhere else since there is no guarantee that a user will
    wander all over to every cross-posted group looking for what happened in the
    thread. Someone might want to visit microsoft.public.outlook but NOT visit
    microsoft.public.outlook.general. Don't go foisting your (or some joker's)
    preferences on the respondents.

    Spammers and malcontents use the FollowUp-To header to redirect replies
    (that they don't want to appear) off to the alt.test or other group. That
    way, they "win" the argument because your replies are hidden from everyone
    else's view that is visiting the group where they expect the thread to
    continue. I very much wish that Outlook Express would show the FollowUp-To
    header so I could see when some idiot was attempting to redirect replies
    from one group to another. If you ever use the FollowUp-To header, you
    should very much announce that fact so other users will know the trick you
    are attempting to play on them.

    Spammers and malcontents (and newbies) use multi-posting. They also use the
    FollowUp-To header to redirect complaints and opposing viewpoints to
    somewhere that will be hidden from other readers. There isn't any use of
    the FollowUp-To header which isn't abusive to the participants of the group
    in which you posted. You are forcing the participants of one group to go
    subscribe to some other group that they might not care about. I may
    eventually change to a different NNTP client, like Xnews, and one filter
    would auto-delete any joker's post that tries to use the FollowUp-To header.
    Such users are rude. If you want your posts redirected to somewhere else
    then just post over at somewhere else and keep your damn posts out of the
    groups that you don't intend to visit because, in like manner, we aren't
    going to bother getting dragged somewhere else just because of your
    preference. If you don't have the time to visit a newsgroup to which you
    post to check for replies, and you refuse to cross-post, then do NOT post
    somewhere else!

    Both cross-posting and multi-posting can be abused, but multi-posting always
    incurs some nuisance to others. There should be no need to cross-post to
    more than 6 groups. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find more than 4
    *related* differently-named groups. If you post in a parent group, don't go
    also posting in a child group (e.g., if you post in
    microsoft.public.outlook[.general] then don't also post in
    microsoft.public.outlook.fax, and visa versa). Make sure your message is
    on-topic in *each* cross-posted group AND that the groups are *related* to
    each other. Don't post (whether cross-post or multi-post) to a group that
    you have not visited. If you don't know the group, you don't know if the
    group wants your post there. Lurk for awhile, or severely limit to which
    group(s) you post to the ones where you will go check for the replies.

    Cross-posting is polite. It lets all readers in each group watch the entire
    thread without having to wander of to some other group that they may not
    participate. Cross-posting reduces the amount of disk space consumed on a
    single NNTP server and the aggregate size across all the NNTP servers
    worldwide. With multi-posting, you disconnect readers in one group from
    seeing replies made in another group. With multi-posting, you end up having
    to check each group for replies. The FollowUp-To header, if not used by a
    spammer or malcontent, is a convenience ONLY for the original poster, *not*
    for any of the respondents, especially since they may not know that their
    post is getting redirected (few NNTP client sound an alarm telling the user
    that their reply will disappear off into some other group to which they
    submitted their reply post). Cross-posting can be abused. Multi-posting is
    always abusive. FollowUp-To header is always a nuisance and the vast
    majority of its use is abusive.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Mar 19, 2006
    #6
  7. jw 1111

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:4tlTf.589214$...
    > Rich Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the message
    >> separately to each group where it's relevant.

    >
    > No it isn't. Why create double/triple work for the respondents?


    I didn't say I agreed with it...
     
    Rich Wilson, Mar 20, 2006
    #7
  8. jw 1111

    Rich Wilson Guest

    "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    news:7nlTf.7590$...
    >
    > "Rich Wilson" <> wrote in message
    > news:0dlTf.7561$...
    >>
    >> "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    >> news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >>>I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    >>> subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>> I then received this following message from the administrators of that
    >>> group
    >>> which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
    >>> politely for an explanation.
    >>>
    >>> This is what they sent me:
    >>>
    >>> "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    >>> no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    >>> newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    >>> Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >>>
    >>> What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
    >>> thanks

    >>
    >> Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more than
    >> one newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the
    >> message separately to each group where it's relevant.

    >
    > Many thanks to all replies. Why do they get wound up about it ?


    I really don't know!
     
    Rich Wilson, Mar 20, 2006
    #8
  9. jw 1111

    Seatoller Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:04:41 +0000, Rich Wilson wrote:

    >
    > "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    > news:7nlTf.7590$...
    >>
    >> "Rich Wilson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:0dlTf.7561$...
    >>>
    >>> "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >>>>I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
    >>>> subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >>>>
    >>>> I then received this following message from the administrators of that
    >>>> group
    >>>> which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i
    >>>> asked politely for an explanation.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is what they sent me:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has no
    >>>> Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single newsgroup,
    >>>> rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups). Please resubmit
    >>>> with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."
    >>>>
    >>>> What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.?
    >>>> Many thanks
    >>>
    >>> Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more than
    >>> one newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the
    >>> message separately to each group where it's relevant.

    >>
    >> Many thanks to all replies. Why do they get wound up about it ?

    >
    > I really don't know!


    Trolls do it a /lot/ to drag other newsgroups into arguments which has
    /nothing/ to do with the original discussion started in one particular
    group. That's why some groups regard /anyone/ crossposting with suspicion.

    --
    SuSE 10.1 (Agama Lizard) Development distro
     
    Seatoller, Mar 20, 2006
    #9
  10. jw 1111

    Kirk Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:59:15 GMT ±, "jw 1111"
    <> spake thus:

    >
    >"Rich Wilson" <> wrote in message
    >news:0dlTf.7561$...
    >>
    >> "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    >> news:M7lTf.11496$...
    >>>I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in

    my
    >>> subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>> I then received this following message from the administrators of

    that
    >>> group
    >>> which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i

    asked
    >>> politely for an explanation.
    >>>
    >>> This is what they sent me:
    >>>
    >>> "Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
    >>> no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
    >>> newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
    >>> Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good

    netiquette."
    >>>
    >>> What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.?

    Many
    >>> thanks

    >>
    >> Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more

    than one
    >> newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the

    message
    >> separately to each group where it's relevant.

    >
    >Many thanks to all replies. Why do they get wound up about it ?


    They have really small penis' and no testicles.

    >>
    >>

    >


    --

    40, 70, 96, 180, 3664, 24717, 15492, 84198, 65489, 3725, 16974, 41702, 3788, 5757, 1958, 14609, 62892, 44745, 9385, 169, 40...
     
    Kirk, Mar 20, 2006
    #10
  11. jw 1111

    jw 1111 Guest

    thanks to all replies. what actually happened is that I posted to a
    cooking newsgroup, rec.food.cooking and also included in the newsgroup
    title box another group, rec.food.veg.cooking. Now rec.food.cooking will
    not accept my post to them for the reasons I posted here before.

    is this not a kind of censorship which will 'squeeze out' and hence close
    very small groups like rec.food.veg.cooking, because very huge groups like
    rec.food.cooking are in effect saying only contact us? its like a
    monopoly taking advantage of their size to limit anyone else getting off the
    ground is it not? Thanks for any further advice.
     
    jw 1111, Mar 20, 2006
    #11
  12. jw 1111

    Cisco Guest

    On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:39:11 GMT, "jw 1111"
    <> wrote:

    >thanks to all replies. what actually happened is that I posted to a
    >cooking newsgroup, rec.food.cooking and also included in the newsgroup
    >title box another group, rec.food.veg.cooking. Now rec.food.cooking will
    >not accept my post to them for the reasons I posted here before.
    >
    >is this not a kind of censorship which will 'squeeze out' and hence close
    >very small groups like rec.food.veg.cooking, because very huge groups like
    >rec.food.cooking are in effect saying only contact us? its like a
    >monopoly taking advantage of their size to limit anyone else getting off the
    >ground is it not? Thanks for any further advice.
    >


    Don't post to moderated groups. They are usually a mutual masturbation
    society where outsiders are discouraged and the inhabitants bear the
    mark of generations of inbreeding to mothers and daughters.

    If you really must post to a moderated group then only post to that
    group. If you want the same message posted to other groups keep them
    separate from the moderated group and post copies rather than cross
    posting.
     
    Cisco, Mar 20, 2006
    #12
  13. jw 1111

    Vanguard Guest

    "jw 1111" <> wrote in message
    news:3gyTf.12825$...
    > thanks to all replies. what actually happened is that I posted to a
    > cooking newsgroup, rec.food.cooking and also included in the newsgroup
    > title box another group, rec.food.veg.cooking. Now rec.food.cooking will
    > not accept my post to them for the reasons I posted here before.
    >
    > is this not a kind of censorship which will 'squeeze out' and hence close
    > very small groups like rec.food.veg.cooking, because very huge groups like
    > rec.food.cooking are in effect saying only contact us? its like a
    > monopoly taking advantage of their size to limit anyone else getting off
    > the ground is it not? Thanks for any further advice.
    >



    Ask them to actually provide PROOF of their claimed charter (and who claims
    to be its author). It is an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Anyone can make any
    claims they want regarding use of the newsgroup but they are just a wannabe
    cop trying to make you believe they can weild power. They don't weild any
    power and cannot prevent you from posting in any newsgroup. If you are
    using the wannabe cop's news server, he can probably delete your post.
    However, if you post through someone else's news server, all the wannabe cop
    can do is delete the copy on his server but he cannot do anything on all the
    other worldwide farm of news servers.

    A moderated group is supposed to be named with the .mod suffix. If the
    wannabe cop wants to regulate his own news server to omit cross-posted
    messages, he should've created an rec.food.cooking.mod newsgroup. Without
    the .mod, it is NOT a moderated newsgroup (except in this wannabe cop's own
    mind or on his own server). He can cancel your post on his news server and
    hope that the cancel propagates to other news servers but few news servers
    honor cancels anymore because of abuse by malcontents that can delete anyone
    else's posts.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Mar 20, 2006
    #13
  14. Vanguard wrote:

    > Ask them to actually provide PROOF of their claimed charter (and who
    > claims to be its author). It is an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Anyone can


    Did you look that up, or are you basing that call on your idea that it's
    not moderated because .mod isn't in the name. If the latter...

    > make any claims they want regarding use of the newsgroup but they are
    > just a wannabe cop trying to make you believe they can weild power.
    > They don't weild any power and cannot prevent you from posting in any
    > newsgroup. If you are using the wannabe cop's news server, he can
    > probably delete your post. However, if you post through someone else's
    > news server, all the wannabe cop can do is delete the copy on his server
    > but he cannot do anything on all the other worldwide farm of news
    > servers.
    >
    > A moderated group is supposed to be named with the .mod suffix. If the
    > wannabe cop wants to regulate his own news server to omit cross-posted
    > messages, he should've created an rec.food.cooking.mod newsgroup.
    > Without the .mod, it is NOT a moderated newsgroup (except in this
    > wannabe cop's


    ....you should probably note that not all moderated groups have .mod in
    the name.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filter rules specific to various real news clients
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 21, 2006
    #14
  15. jw 1111

    Vanguard Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    >> Ask them to actually provide PROOF of their claimed charter (and who
    >> claims to be its author). It is an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Anyone can

    >
    > Did you look that up, or are you basing that call on your idea that it's
    > not moderated because .mod isn't in the name. If the latter...
    >
    >> make any claims they want regarding use of the newsgroup but they are
    >> just a wannabe cop trying to make you believe they can weild power.
    >> They don't weild any power and cannot prevent you from posting in any
    >> newsgroup. If you are using the wannabe cop's news server, he can
    >> probably delete your post. However, if you post through someone else's
    >> news server, all the wannabe cop can do is delete the copy on his server
    >> but he cannot do anything on all the other worldwide farm of news
    >> servers.
    >>
    >> A moderated group is supposed to be named with the .mod suffix. If the
    >> wannabe cop wants to regulate his own news server to omit cross-posted
    >> messages, he should've created an rec.food.cooking.mod newsgroup.
    >> Without the .mod, it is NOT a moderated newsgroup (except in this
    >> wannabe cop's

    >
    > ...you should probably note that not all moderated groups have .mod in
    > the name.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Blinky
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    > Coming Soon: Filter rules specific to various real news clients
    >



    And how is a group moderated? By the admins of a particular NNTP server
    issuing cancels. That only affects THAT particular server. The admin may
    hope that the cancels will propagate (do they?) to other NNTP server
    worldwide except that many, if not most, will not honor cancels. Almost
    anyone can issue cancels against anyone else's posts. Google learned this
    when they had to keep restoring posts deleted by a cancel gang. I use
    Giganews and it doesn't honor cancels (although it does have a
    control.cancel group). A couple other NNTP servers that I've used do honor
    cancels. So whether someone claiming to be an admin of a group can perform
    a cancel depends on which server the visitor is connecting. I suppose the
    admin of the policed (i.e., moderated) server could try to kill the post
    before allowing it to get submitted so that it gets killed and never
    propagates to other NNTP servers that won't honor cancels. However, since
    the group has been moderated to those other NNTP servers and since users can
    post to that group on the other NNTP server, cancelling posts on the policed
    server won't affect the post that started on some other NNTP server (or any
    other servers to which the post got propagated and which don't honor
    cancels).

    Unless a group does not get propagated to other NNTP servers worldwide
    (i.e., it is a "private" group on a particular server, how can an admin on
    NNTP host #1 that cancels a post there get rid of the post after it
    propagated to NNTP host #2? I can see a bot scanning the submitted posts to
    NNTP host #1 might trash the post so it can never get propagated, but a post
    by a user that appears and later gets nixed by an admin might be too late
    since the post may have already been propagated. Also, if the user posts to
    the group carried on NNTP host #2 and it propagates back to the policed NNTP
    host #1, what good does it do to nix the post on NNTP host #1 since NNTP
    host #2 already has it (and doesn't honor cancels)?

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Mar 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Vanguard wrote:

    > "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> Vanguard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ask them to actually provide PROOF of their claimed charter (and who
    >>> claims to be its author). It is an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Anyone can

    >>
    >> Did you look that up, or are you basing that call on your idea that it's
    >> not moderated because .mod isn't in the name. If the latter...
    >>
    >>> make any claims they want regarding use of the newsgroup but they are
    >>> just a wannabe cop trying to make you believe they can weild power.
    >>> They don't weild any power and cannot prevent you from posting in any
    >>> newsgroup. If you are using the wannabe cop's news server, he can
    >>> probably delete your post. However, if you post through someone else's
    >>> news server, all the wannabe cop can do is delete the copy on his
    >>> server but he cannot do anything on all the other worldwide farm of
    >>> news servers.
    >>>
    >>> A moderated group is supposed to be named with the .mod suffix. If the
    >>> wannabe cop wants to regulate his own news server to omit cross-posted
    >>> messages, he should've created an rec.food.cooking.mod newsgroup.
    >>> Without the .mod, it is NOT a moderated newsgroup (except in this
    >>> wannabe cop's

    >>
    >> ...you should probably note that not all moderated groups have .mod in
    >> the name.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Blinky
    >> Killing all posts from Google Groups
    >> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    >> Coming Soon: Filter rules specific to various real news clients
    >>
    >>

    >
    > And how is a group moderated? By the admins of a particular NNTP server


    I'll tell you in a moment...

    > issuing cancels. That only affects THAT particular server. The admin
    > may hope that the cancels will propagate (do they?) to other NNTP server
    > worldwide except that many, if not most, will not honor cancels. Almost
    > anyone can issue cancels against anyone else's posts. Google learned
    > this when they had to keep restoring posts deleted by a cancel gang. I
    > use Giganews and it doesn't honor cancels (although it does have a
    > control.cancel group). A couple other NNTP servers that I've used do
    > honor cancels. So whether someone claiming to be an admin of a group
    > can perform a cancel depends on which server the visitor is connecting.
    > I suppose the admin of the policed (i.e., moderated) server could try to
    > kill the post before allowing it to get submitted so that it gets killed
    > and never propagates to other NNTP servers that won't honor cancels.
    > However, since the group has been moderated to those other NNTP servers
    > and since users can post to that group on the other NNTP server,
    > cancelling posts on the policed server won't affect the post that
    > started on some other NNTP server (or any other servers to which the
    > post got propagated and which don't honor cancels).
    >
    > Unless a group does not get propagated to other NNTP servers worldwide
    > (i.e., it is a "private" group on a particular server, how can an admin
    > on NNTP host #1 that cancels a post there get rid of the post after it
    > propagated to NNTP host #2? I can see a bot scanning the submitted
    > posts to NNTP host #1 might trash the post so it can never get
    > propagated, but a post by a user that appears and later gets nixed by an
    > admin might be too late since the post may have already been propagated.
    > Also, if the user posts to the group carried on NNTP host #2 and it
    > propagates back to the policed NNTP host #1, what good does it do to nix
    > the post on NNTP host #1 since NNTP host #2 already has it (and doesn't
    > honor cancels)?


    ....but first I wanted to see if you really did have "cancelled" and
    "moderated" all confused. Ayup, very verbally so. :)

    Here's how soc.history.war.world-war-ii is moderated. Not cancelled,
    you'll note -- moderated. This his how posts go to the moderators for
    *approval*, and if approved are then posted *to the group* by those
    moderators. Pay particular attention to the whole paste, and even more
    attention to: "While reading newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii simply
    respond to the article or post a new article. The article will be
    automatically routed to one of the active moderators for review" and
    "Again, your article will reach one of the moderators for review."

    From the group's FAQ:

    <q>

    MODERATION SETUP/APARATUS
    _________________________

    This group will be group-moderated using a Majordomo listserver. It has
    been configured so that each article received at
    will be sent to the next moderator in turn, using a list of subscribed
    moderators. Hence, the *submission* address for articles will be
    . The *contact* address for the group, once created,
    will be .

    ************************************************************************

    <snip>

    -------
    Subject: 7) Where & How to submit articles ?

    There are two ways to do so:

    A- through USENET

    While reading newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii simply respond to the
    article or post a new article. The article will be automatically routed to
    one of the active moderators for review.

    B- Through E-MAIL

    You may submit your article to the following address. Again, your article
    will reach one of the moderators for review.

    The e-mail address is:



    ************************************************************************
    ************************************************************************

    -------
    Subject: 8) Some Helpful Tips

    It may take up to 1-2 days for your article to be reviewed and another day
    or so for the article to reach your site after being posted from a
    moderator's site.

    Articles not deemed fit for posting on the forum will be returned by the
    moderator with an explanation citing a rationale & the guidelines of the
    forum.

    1. Always save a copy of your article you submit till it appears on the
    forum.

    2. If the article does not appear on the newsgroup and the article was not
    returned back by the moderator AND 3 days have elapsed: Please contact the
    moderators, ASAP, at the following e-mail address:



    </q>

    Nopers. Not cancellations at all, eh? Approvals. Not approved, not
    posted to the group.

    But your description about cancels was good. Just irrelevant.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 22, 2006
    #16
  17. jw 1111

    Vanguard Guest

    Wow. Thanks for all the good info. Lets me better understand how
    moderation works. I figured that a moderator could block the submission of
    a post on their NNTP server or could do it retroactively using cancels but I
    don't see how one cop regulating one NNTP server can enforce the same rules
    on other NNTP servers.

    - If a post must be reviewed by a moderator before the submission is allowed
    to get posted on their server, doesn't that mean there will be a much larger
    lag in getting posts to show up? The pasted article says it could take 1 to
    2 days for a submission to get reviewed before it would show up on their
    particular NNTP server. Geez, what a worthless medium for communication.
    While Usenet doesn't provide the immediacy of chat rooms, it should, at
    least, approximate the interactiveness available in forums. I'm used to
    forums where there may be an Iron Claw policy that will retroactively delete
    posts, might kill an account, or even ban a user by IP address (for awhile)
    but waiting around for a moderator would totally disintegrate the flow of
    communication between visitors to a group. It would be okay if it were a
    group where, for example, visitors were advertising their cars for sale,
    like the bulletin board at the grocery store. However, someone asking for
    help or attempting to have a conversation would end up getting delayed far
    too long. It degenerates a group into a post-only group and discussion
    (i.e., replies) would be so delayed that it would be highly likely that no
    one would reply, if they could. I far prefer the retroactive Iron Claw
    scheme employed in forums. This moderation scheme for Usenet really sucks
    as it severely interferes with communication, but then I live in a country
    with more freedoms rather than in a dictatorship and have to blare out "Hile
    Hilter" everytime I wanted to get permission to speak.

    - Are bots ever used to regulate submission of posts? For something like a
    rule regarding cross-posting (which might be an anti-spam measure based on
    the number of newsgroups) it seems a bot would be easier and quicker than
    having a human check every post just to verify how the post was submitted
    versus its content.

    - How does moderating submissions on one NNTP host enforce the same actions
    (allow or block) on other NNTP servers? Are they required to stay in sync?
    What if an NNTP host doesn't keep their groups in sync? And to which NNTP
    server would they use as the master to remain in sync? I can see
    controlling your own NNTP server but not how one can enforce any actions be
    committed by someone else's NNTP server.

    - If reciprocity amongst NNTP servers cannot be enforced, it seems the easy
    way to circumvent moderation is to simply post at a different NNTP server.
    The policing NNTP server wouldn't see the submission from the poster but
    instead get the post through synchronization which would seem to require a
    cancel by the moderator at the policing NNTP server. But if moderation
    (blocking a submission or cancelling a sync'ed post) is only enforced at and
    only for the policing NNTP server, it does little to actually moderate the
    group - unless that group isn't carried on any NNTP server than the one
    being moderated. In your pasted article, the poster submits to
    so it would be their NNTP server where the post might
    first show up if a moderator allowed the post. But the group is carried by
    other NNTP servers so why, for example, couldn't the poster use Google
    Groups to submit a post to the group, let it propagate to all other NNTP
    servers worldwide, except for maybe this particular NNTP server at duke.edu?
    Is there a master NNTP server designated for each group through which all
    submissions are routed before they are allowed to propagate to other NNTP
    servers, even back to the one to which the original post was submitted?

    - The problem that I've had in knowing the charter for a group is actually
    finding the charter. Is there a catchall site that lists the charter for
    each group? I've seen the charter show up occasionally as a repost in a
    group but it eventually disappears (and why it got reposted). Some NNTP
    servers don't retain as long as others so the charter will disappear more
    quickly on some.

    - Why would a group not append ".mod" to the end of its name to let visitors
    understand that it is a moderated group? Why hide that fact? If there were
    some means to force reciprocity of moderation on the policing NNTP server to
    other NNTP servers then why isn't the use of ".mod" also enforced? Why
    would a group deliberately misrepresent itself?

    Like Cisco said, and if moderation works as Blinky says, and if the
    censorship is somehow enforced onto other NNTP servers outside the physical
    control of the censors, er, moderators of the group, then moderated groups
    really are for masturbating moderators who like delaying and interferring
    with the communications between other users. Boy, am I glad the telcos
    don't operate that way, or forums, or the unmoderated groups. I participate
    in many forums and many of them incorporate some censorship but it is
    retroactive so there is no delay in communications between users where the
    posts would not have been censored. If the jerkoffs can only police their
    own NNTP server, it seems pretty easy to get around their slimy grip by
    posting to the group using a different NNTP server.

    I'm not against censorship as long as its employment was overt, like using
    ".mod" in the group name. If ".mod" was supposed to mean to designate a
    moderated group and if a group is moderated that refuses to announce that
    fact by using the ".mod" qualifier, why wouldn't the rest of the Usenet
    server community simply censor out
    groups that misrepresents themselves? I'm not against censorship to
    regulate the [lack of] professionalism or retain focus of a forum, but it
    shouldn't interfere with the immediacy or timeliness of the posts. Usenet
    already has some lag in communication but moderation, if as described, would
    devolve it into using postcards sent via snail mail.
     
    Vanguard, Mar 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Vanguard wrote:

    > Wow. Thanks for all the good info. Lets me better understand how


    You're welcome.

    <snip>

    Response to whole post:

    1. doesn't appear to BE an NNTP server (when's the
    last time you saw an "at symbol" in a news server name?), and all of your
    New Questions still still seem to assume that is is. Somehow - I don't
    know how - when I post to the group it ends up there, not IN the group.
    So while you appear to have read what I pasted from that group's FAQ,
    you're still producing cubic yards of verbiage based on your original
    assumption that users are posting directly to the group.

    2. All I know is what I can read in that FAQ. If you'd like to see the
    whole document, download the last couple thousand posts in
    soc.history.war.world-war-ii; that's how I snagged it when I wanted an
    example that I'd read and knew explained away your "moderated by
    cancellation" misconception.

    3. Using an email address contained in that FAQ (for disputing
    moderation, IIRC), contact the moderators for more information. Make it
    clear that you're not trying to find ways *around* moderation and that
    you'd just like to understand the technical aspects of the system. I've
    only posted there rarely and not for quite a while, so there won't be any
    reason to name-drop. :)

    Good luck.

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 22, 2006
    #18
  19. jw 1111

    Vanguard Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    >> Wow. Thanks for all the good info. Lets me better understand how

    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Response to whole post:
    >
    > 1. doesn't appear to BE an NNTP server (when's the
    > last time you saw an "at symbol" in a news server name?), and all of your
    > New Questions still still seem to assume that is is. Somehow - I don't
    > know how - when I post to the group it ends up there, not IN the group.
    > So while you appear to have read what I pasted from that group's FAQ,
    > you're still producing cubic yards of verbiage based on your original
    > assumption that users are posting directly to the group.


    I assumed the charter was discussing how to use a mail-to-news gateway. The
    users send their post to the e-mail server which then uses the Majordomo
    thing to notify the moderators of the post (maybe also through e-mail), and
    somehow a moderator sends a command back to the mail server that permits it
    to send the post to the NNTP server (which is *their* NNTP server).

    The charter (you pasted) mentions Majordomo. From
    http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Majordomo.html and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majordomo_(software), it would appear the
    "group" front end uses e-mail and that it is a mailing list rather than a
    group. Yet these e-mails, once allowed, also show up in a Usenet group, so
    there must be a mail-to-news gateway employed to get the authorized mails
    from their mail list server over to an NNTP server to which we are
    connecting to to which other worldwide NNTP servers are sychronizing.

    I've been on mailing lists before, like the one for MVPS. None of those
    mails end up in a newsgroup. It is just a mailing list. For the mails to
    get to Usenet means something more than a list server was employed, like a
    mail-to-news gateway (and now some forums are using a mail-to-news gateway,
    too).

    When I do a search on newsgroups for the NNTP server to which I connect,
    rec.food.veg.cooking is listed. Obviously I am using an NNTP client to
    connect to the group and not e-mail. So if the charter mentions about using
    e-mail to submit posts to a mailing list and those posts are getting to the
    Usenet group (which is a copy of that mailing list) then some gateway
    between their mail server and an NNTP server must be in place.

    Since the "group" is not only available by using the e-mail scheme of
    submitting messages but also by accessing the Usenet newsgroup for that
    mailing list, just how are the moderators of the mailing list for which they
    have control going to control who posts what at someone else's NNTP server
    that carries that group? Obviously these moderators don't own, say,
    Giganews which carries the newsgroup so how can the moderators prevent
    someone from posting to the group using a Giganews NNTP server? Unless
    there is reciprocity amongst all NNTP servers to keep their posts within a
    group in sync with each other, moderation seems fruitless. They may
    moderate within their realm (which is the mailing list) but can't do
    anything about the messages on everyone else's NNTP server to which they
    have gatewayed their mailing list.

    Regardless of how their charter says to submit posts, just how is
    rec.food.cooking going to prevent me from using Giganews, AIOE, InfoAve, or
    some other NNTP server to post any message to that group? And of keeping my
    post there on that NNTP server and to most other NNTP servers while maybe
    just not getting on their own NNTP server? That's why I mentioned cancels
    because they don't control the other NNTP hosts, are using e-mail to
    regulate the submitted posts and are probably not using a bot or scheme with
    the NNTP server to removed unwanted posts, and cancels don't propagate or
    many NNTP servers don't honor them - so they cannot get rid of unwanted
    posts that were submitted to an NNTP server versus being submitted through
    their e-mail scheme.

    I would venture to guess that vast majority of newsgroup visitor are using
    an NNTP client or a webnews-for-dummies interface (which both go to an NNTP
    server or propagate to other NNTP servers). So how is their e-mail scheme
    going to prevent posts from appearing when NOT using their Majordomo e-mail
    scheme?

    I can go wander around trying to find their complete charter but I doubt it
    matters as it probably does not discuss the technologies involved in
    synchronizing their mailing list into the Usenet group.

    - They can regulate submissions sent through their e-mail server (which, if
    allowed on their mailing list, also show up in the Usenet group). This
    would eliminate an unwanted post from ever showing up in their mailing list
    and also through the mail-to-news gateway to *their* NNTP server.

    - They cannot prevent anyone from submitting posts to an NNTP server that
    they do NOT control.
    - They cannot prevent other NNTP servers that they do NOT control from
    synchronizing with the poster's NNTP server to get their post.
    - They can use cancels in the control.cancel group to get rid of an unwanted
    post but that may only work on their own NNTP server. Do cancels submitted
    to the control.cancel group get propagated to other NNTP servers?
    - If the cancels propagate to other NNTP servers, it will only work for the
    few that still honor cancels. If cancels don't propagate to other NNTP
    servers, all the moderators can do is regulate their own NNTP server.

    I don't see how moderation can work in Usenet. The NNTP server to which the
    post was submitted are not under their control, nor are the other NNTP
    servers to which the post get propagated. It's reminiscent of the little
    child covering her eyes with her hands while sitting atop Daddy's lap and
    declaring, "You can't see me now."

    I just posted to rec.food.cooking (asking about sea salt). Okay, so how are
    the moderators of a mailing list with a mail-2-news gateway going to prevent
    my post from appearing on the group when using the InfoAve NNTP server?
    They can't! My post DID show up in the group. The only way now to get rid
    of it is not through proactive moderation (using their Majordomo mailing
    list to notify moderators) but through retroactive cancellation. I haven't
    tested if InfoAve supports cancels. If I had posted using my Giganews NNTP
    server, I know that cancels are ignored there.

    --
    __________________________________________________
    Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
    For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
    __________________________________________________
     
    Vanguard, Mar 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Vanguard wrote:

    > "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> Vanguard wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wow. Thanks for all the good info. Lets me better understand how

    >>
    >> You're welcome.
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> Response to whole post:
    >>
    >> 1. doesn't appear to BE an NNTP server (when's
    >> the last time you saw an "at symbol" in a news server name?), and all
    >> of your New Questions still still seem to assume that is is. Somehow -
    >> I don't know how - when I post to the group it ends up there, not IN
    >> the group. So while you appear to have read what I pasted from that
    >> group's FAQ, you're still producing cubic yards of verbiage based on
    >> your original assumption that users are posting directly to the group.

    >
    > I assumed the charter was discussing how to use a mail-to-news gateway.
    > The users send their post to the e-mail server which then uses the
    > Majordomo thing to notify the moderators of the post (maybe also through
    > e-mail), and somehow a moderator sends a command back to the mail server
    > that permits it to send the post to the NNTP server (which is *their*
    > NNTP server).
    >
    > The charter (you pasted) mentions Majordomo. From
    > http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Majordomo.html and
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majordomo_(software), it would appear
    > the "group" front end uses e-mail and that it is a mailing list rather
    > than a group. Yet these e-mails, once allowed, also show up in a Usenet
    > group, so there must be a mail-to-news gateway employed to get the
    > authorized mails from their mail list server over to an NNTP server to
    > which we are connecting to to which other worldwide NNTP servers are
    > sychronizing.
    >
    > I've been on mailing lists before, like the one for MVPS. None of those
    > mails end up in a newsgroup. It is just a mailing list. For the mails
    > to get to Usenet means something more than a list server was employed,
    > like a mail-to-news gateway (and now some forums are using a
    > mail-to-news gateway, too).
    >
    > When I do a search on newsgroups for the NNTP server to which I connect,
    > rec.food.veg.cooking is listed. Obviously I am using an NNTP client to
    > connect to the group and not e-mail. So if the charter mentions about
    > using e-mail to submit posts to a mailing list and those posts are
    > getting to the Usenet group (which is a copy of that mailing list) then
    > some gateway between their mail server and an NNTP server must be in
    > place.
    >
    > Since the "group" is not only available by using the e-mail scheme of
    > submitting messages but also by accessing the Usenet newsgroup for that
    > mailing list, just how are the moderators of the mailing list for which
    > they have control going to control who posts what at someone else's NNTP
    > server that carries that group? Obviously these moderators don't own,
    > say, Giganews which carries the newsgroup so how can the moderators
    > prevent someone from posting to the group using a Giganews NNTP server?
    > Unless there is reciprocity amongst all NNTP servers to keep their posts
    > within a group in sync with each other, moderation seems fruitless.
    > They may moderate within their realm (which is the mailing list) but
    > can't do anything about the messages on everyone else's NNTP server to
    > which they have gatewayed their mailing list.
    >
    > Regardless of how their charter says to submit posts, just how is
    > rec.food.cooking going to prevent me from using Giganews, AIOE, InfoAve,
    > or some other NNTP server to post any message to that group? And of
    > keeping my post there on that NNTP server and to most other NNTP servers
    > while maybe just not getting on their own NNTP server? That's why I
    > mentioned cancels because they don't control the other NNTP hosts, are
    > using e-mail to regulate the submitted posts and are probably not using
    > a bot or scheme with the NNTP server to removed unwanted posts, and
    > cancels don't propagate or many NNTP servers don't honor them - so they
    > cannot get rid of unwanted posts that were submitted to an NNTP server
    > versus being submitted through their e-mail scheme.
    >
    > I would venture to guess that vast majority of newsgroup visitor are
    > using an NNTP client or a webnews-for-dummies interface (which both go
    > to an NNTP server or propagate to other NNTP servers). So how is their
    > e-mail scheme going to prevent posts from appearing when NOT using their
    > Majordomo e-mail scheme?
    >
    > I can go wander around trying to find their complete charter but I doubt
    > it matters as it probably does not discuss the technologies involved in
    > synchronizing their mailing list into the Usenet group.
    >
    > - They can regulate submissions sent through their e-mail server (which,
    > if allowed on their mailing list, also show up in the Usenet group).
    > This would eliminate an unwanted post from ever showing up in their
    > mailing list and also through the mail-to-news gateway to *their* NNTP
    > server.
    >
    > - They cannot prevent anyone from submitting posts to an NNTP server
    > that they do NOT control.
    > - They cannot prevent other NNTP servers that they do NOT control from
    > synchronizing with the poster's NNTP server to get their post. - They
    > can use cancels in the control.cancel group to get rid of an unwanted
    > post but that may only work on their own NNTP server. Do cancels
    > submitted to the control.cancel group get propagated to other NNTP
    > servers? - If the cancels propagate to other NNTP servers, it will only
    > work for the few that still honor cancels. If cancels don't propagate
    > to other NNTP servers, all the moderators can do is regulate their own
    > NNTP server.
    >
    > I don't see how moderation can work in Usenet. The NNTP server to which
    > the post was submitted are not under their control, nor are the other
    > NNTP servers to which the post get propagated. It's reminiscent of the
    > little child covering her eyes with her hands while sitting atop Daddy's
    > lap and declaring, "You can't see me now."
    >
    > I just posted to rec.food.cooking (asking about sea salt). Okay, so how
    > are the moderators of a mailing list with a mail-2-news gateway going to
    > prevent my post from appearing on the group when using the InfoAve NNTP
    > server? They can't! My post DID show up in the group. The only way now
    > to get rid of it is not through proactive moderation (using their
    > Majordomo mailing list to notify moderators) but through retroactive
    > cancellation. I haven't tested if InfoAve supports cancels. If I had
    > posted using my Giganews NNTP server, I know that cancels are ignored
    > there.


    As I suggested in my last post, ask a moderator. I suggested the
    moderators of soc.history.war.world-war-ii because that was the FAQ I
    partially quoted. As I said, I don't know much about this stuff, other
    than what I read there, as it's the only moderate group for which I've
    ever looked into the process.

    As for posting via email: when I hit followup in that group with my NNTP
    client, the reply pane not surprisingly includes the header

    Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

    I don't even have an SMTP client *configured* in my news client, because I
    *never* send email responses. Read: *I* am not sending my reply via
    email; somehow it gets - privately - to the moderator that's next up in
    the moderators' circle. But it's not leaving here as email.

    This is my last post on this, Vanguard. I don't mean that snotty and
    there are no hard feelings involved -- but I've given you all that I know,
    more than once, and told you where to go for more information. I simply
    have no more information or direction to add to the discussion.


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
     
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Malke

    Re: Bulk Newsgroup Poster - amazing result

    Malke, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    554
    Malke
    Jan 17, 2005
  2. Dale

    Thunderbird Newsgroup?

    Dale, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    3,300
  3. Jarmo P
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    976
    Guido Jurock
    Oct 8, 2003
  4. hfs2

    compression jargon

    hfs2, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    328
  5. Snoopy

    Unravelling Telecom Jargon - T&E?

    Snoopy, Oct 27, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    886
    Stu Fleming
    Nov 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page