Draft RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Summary: The mechanism for contacting the moderators of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
of being resolved and techical advice from myself
and others has been effectively ignored.
Proposed action:
Should the matter not be resolved forthwith I intend
to ask control to issue a formal RFD to replace the
existing moderators with a team capable of providing
a service which is fit for purpose.
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
=================
It is a requirement that users should be able to contact the moderators
of a moderated newsgroup within the UK hierarchy via a standard
address uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk
The current moderation system rejects many valid messages to this
address as detailed below and no progress has been made in resolving
the matter.
1) The moderation system at chiark.greenend.org.uk "chiark" rejects
all messages from hotmail addresses to the moderators.
2) The mail handling system known as "SAUCE" at chiark uses a sender
verification system which is known to be faulty, causing hotmail
and most probably other services to reject messages from chiark.
This means that even if the moderators were to recieve a message
from a hotmail or other affected user they have no means of reply.
3) SAUCE is deliberately designed to reject a wide range of otherwise
deliverable messages under the pretense of spam filtering for
technical reasons which are beyond the control of ordinary users
who may wish to contact the moderators. This leads to the rejection
of messages, the scope of this problem being wide but difficult
to accurately evaluate.
4) The SAUCE webpage at http://www.gnu.org/software/sauce/ indicates
that the software author is the same person as the administrator
of chiark. This may well explain the obstinancy of the administrator
in failing to address the known problems.
Ian Smith
I think you can lose item 4 - the reason for the obstinancy is not
relevant.
I would add to item 3 the quote from the sauce web page to the effect
of "this is not an appropriate package to use if you actually want to
receive email from people" (something like that - I forget the exact
wording).
I think I'd expand the opening bit with something like "able easily to
contact" and "without adopting specific workarounds".
Otherwise, it looks reasonable, and if you can find an alternative set
of moderators, I'd vote in favour.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Pedt
on Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wibbled
>> 3) SAUCE is deliberately designed to reject a wide range of otherwise
>> deliverable messages under the pretense of spam filtering for
>> technical reasons which are beyond the control of ordinary users
>> who may wish to contact the moderators. This leads to the rejection
>> of messages, the scope of this problem being wide but difficult
>> to accurately evaluate.
>> 4) The SAUCE webpage at http://www.gnu.org/software/sauce/ indicates
>> that the software author is the same person as the administrator
>> of chiark. This may well explain the obstinancy of the administrator
>> in failing to address the known problems.
>
>I think you can lose item 4 - the reason for the obstinancy is not
>relevant.
Agreed.
>
>I would add to item 3 the quote from the sauce web page to the effect
>of "this is not an appropriate package to use if you actually want to
>receive email from people" (something like that - I forget the exact
>wording).
"SAUCE is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's
important to you."
--
Pedt
Edward Bulwer-Lytton is famous for being the first to start a novel with the
corniest opening sentence.
Jim Crowther
>In message <slrnhhg1p...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 18:45:19
>on Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wibbled
[]
>>I would add to item 3 the quote from the sauce web page to the effect
>>of "this is not an appropriate package to use if you actually want to
>>receive email from people" (something like that - I forget the exact
>>wording).
>
>"SAUCE is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's
>important to you."
Also:
"SAUCE is controversial, because it deliberately rejects mail for
technical deficiencies which wouldn't make it undeliverable."
--
Jim Crowther
Jim A
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Summary: The mechanism for contacting the moderators of
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
> despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
> of being resolved and techical advice from myself
> and others has been effectively ignored.
>
> Proposed action:
> Should the matter not be resolved forthwith I intend
> to ask control to issue a formal RFD to replace the
> existing moderators with a team capable of providing
> a service which is fit for purpose.
If URCM isn't doing the job, you can use URC. URCM may have more
traffic, but I can't be bothered with all the politics myself.
I'm against this RFD as it's unnecessary when there is a perfectly
serviceable ng available as an alternative.
The Happy Hippy
"Jim A" <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote ...
> If URCM isn't doing the job, you can use URC. URCM may have more
> traffic, but I can't be bothered with all the politics myself.
>
> I'm against this RFD as it's unnecessary when there is a perfectly
> serviceable ng available as an alternative.
I disagree. That's a poor substitute for a technical failing which is
deliberately preventing people from using a group they would otherwise be
able to use. It has all the hallmarks of u.r.c.m being a clique where those
who cannot or won't jump through the imposed hoops can jolly well go
elsewhere. Not acceptable.
Funnily enough, that u.r.c wan't "perfectly serviceable" seemed the prime
argument for the creation of u.r.c.m
Percy Picacity
news:gj3gh59056tgjg143...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
> wrote:
>
>> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Nope.
>
> I voted against this group but it now has a lot of users.
>
> Come back in a year or two.
>
Quite so. Urcm is dominated by small self-satisfied clique who will
always swarm piranha-like on any stranger, especially one who has
the temerity to differ on various cycling arcana: even a
disinterested group of moderators (which these are clearly not)
could not prevent this. This is not pretty, but seems a legitimate
use of a newsgroup to me.
The business about the moderator contact address is frankly of only
limited importance, though I think the committee's opinion is
entirely correct and justified.
Even if I thought that erasure was a justified punishment for the
above sins, there is the overwhelming problem that no other group of
cyclists is likely to turn to use the "rescued" urcm, and one could
hardly blame the existing clique for not doing so (I wouldn't!).
Hence the above draft RFD should have no hope of success.
I really hope none of the unnc regulars would actually vote for it
if it came to a vote. Injured pride would not be an adequate
reason.
Anyway, Ian Jackson has actually agreed (quietly) to solve the
Hotmail problem in due course - lets give it a rest for a month or
so!
--
Percy Picacity
Just zis Guy, you know?
<Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>"SAUCE is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's
>>important to you."
>
>Also:
>
>"SAUCE is controversial, because it deliberately rejects mail for
>technical deficiencies which wouldn't make it undeliverable."
Indeed. These are compelling reasons for not using it in this case.
The principal complainant will, of course, end up being ignored for
other reasons, but there is no reason not to fix this as Ian Jackson
has already, I believe, said he could do were he so minded.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
John Hall
Victor Meldrew <vic...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>I voted against this group but it now has a lot of users.
Nobody has suggested removing the group. One would hope that, if
everything goes as it should, a change in moderators should not have any
impact on users of the group (apart from the desired one of making it
possible for everyone to email the moderators in the event of a
problem).
>
>Come back in a year or two.
>
What do you think will have changed by then?
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
d...@telent.net
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
I don't know the technical procedure here, but the CFV for group
creation included the initial set of moderators. If this RFD proceeds
to the point of a vote, will it likewise be required to name the new mods?
I imagine that the choice of replacements will influence voting.
-dan
Matthew Vernon
> I disagree. That's a poor substitute for a technical failing which is
> deliberately preventing people from using a group they would otherwise be
> able to use. It has all the hallmarks of u.r.c.m being a clique where those
> who cannot or won't jump through the imposed hoops can jolly well go
> elsewhere. Not acceptable.
Err, the SAUCE business is making it a bit harder for a small set of
people to contact the moderators. It's affecting no-one's ability to
post to the group.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Matthew Vernon
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
another RFD on the subject?
Ian Smith
> In message <slrnhhg1p...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 18:45:19
> on Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wibbled
> >
> >of "this is not an appropriate package to use if you actually want to
> >receive email from people" (something like that - I forget the exact
> >wording).
>
> "SAUCE is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's
> important to you."
That's the one.
Moderators of a group can reasonably expect strangers to send them
email (in the RFD for u.r.c.m it was repeated stated that they didn't
want a closed clique group).
Anyone can reasonably expect a proportion of users on the internet to
clueless (possibly benignly so, but clueless none-the-less).
Moderators can reasonably be expected to regard email from people
trying to post to the group they moderate as being important.
The web page may as well say "this software is inappropriate for the
moderator addresses of a newsgroup"
Whatever happened to be liberal in what you require but conservative
in what you do? I thought that was a tenet of good design, myself...
d...@telent.net
> Whatever happened to be liberal in what you require but conservative
> in what you do? I thought that was a tenet of good design, myself...
It was, once, but it pretty much died in the email world when spam came
along. I remember when running an open smtp relay used to be regarded
as a net-friendly action ...
-dan
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Hopefully a change will not be necessary, the purpose of the draft RFD
is to formally identify the problems and encourage the moderation team
to make appropriate arrangements
either by persuading the owner of chiark to fix the problems or by
moving the moderators mail facility elsewhere.
This is the beginning of a formal proceedure.
There are a limited number of items which can be formally discussed
in unnc, an RFD must have one of a limited number of purposes.
Actually proceeding to a formal RFD followed by a vote should be
seen as escalation toward the "nuclear option".
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:32:15 +0000, Jim Crowther
><Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>"SAUCE is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's
>>>important to you."
>>
>>Also:
>>
>>"SAUCE is controversial, because it deliberately rejects mail for
>>technical deficiencies which wouldn't make it undeliverable."
>
>Indeed. These are compelling reasons for not using it in this case.
>The principal complainant will, of course, end up being ignored for
>other reasons, but there is no reason not to fix this as Ian Jackson
>has already, I believe, said he could do were he so minded.
>
>Guy
When you say "he could do were he so minded" surely you mean "could do
so if he was not so bloody minded"?
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
jms
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>Anyway, Ian Jackson has actually agreed (quietly) to solve the
>Hotmail problem in due course - lets give it a rest for a month or
>so!
Why did he not do just that when told about the problem in the first
place?
(When you say he has "agreed quietly" are you part of the chiark squad
in disguise?)
d...@telent.net
> This is the beginning of a formal proceedure.
> There are a limited number of items which can be formally discussed
> in unnc, an RFD must have one of a limited number of purposes.
> Actually proceeding to a formal RFD followed by a vote should be
> seen as escalation toward the "nuclear option".
I have seen almost nothing in the discussion thus far which is likely to
make the moderation team change their minds on this issue: even a very
rudimentary understanding of human nature and conflict resolution is
sufficient to see that most of what's been posted to this point will
only escalate the situation and encourage them to "dig their heels in".
In short, don't start throwing around phrases like "nuclear option"
unless you're prepared to use it.
-dan
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >>
> >>"SAUCE is controversial, because it deliberately rejects mail for
> >>technical deficiencies which wouldn't make it undeliverable."
> >
> >Indeed. These are compelling reasons for not using it in this case.
> >The principal complainant will, of course, end up being ignored for
> >other reasons, but there is no reason not to fix this as Ian Jackson
> >has already, I believe, said he could do were he so minded.
>
> so if he was not so bloody minded"?
The major problem here is that Ian is the author of SAUCE and thus
believes that his system is the answer to life, the universe and
everything. He is proud of his project but lacks the broad overview
of reality and the needs of a system serving the real world.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > I disagree. That's a poor substitute for a technical failing which is
> > deliberately preventing people from using a group they would otherwise be
> > able to use. It has all the hallmarks of u.r.c.m being a clique where those
> > who cannot or won't jump through the imposed hoops can jolly well go
> > elsewhere. Not acceptable.
>
> Err, the SAUCE business is making it a bit harder for a small set of
> people to contact the moderators. It's affecting no-one's ability to
> post to the group.
This affects more than a small set of people.
One of the principles of a moderated newsgroup is that ANY user can
ask for the help or opinions of the moderation team, for example to
find an acceptable wording for a contentious issue prior to posting.
Without this facility the moderators become unaccountable censors
which is not acceptable.
Trollsworth LeTrole
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Summary: The mechanism for contacting the moderators of
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
> despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
> of being resolved and techical advice from myself
> and others has been effectively ignored.
>
> Proposed action:
> Should the matter not be resolved forthwith I intend
> to ask control to issue a formal RFD to replace the
> existing moderators with a team capable of providing
> a service which is fit for purpose.
>
> TECHNICAL SUMMARY
> =================
>
> It is a requirement that users should be able to contact the moderators
> of a moderated newsgroup within the UK hierarchy via a standard
> The current moderation system rejects many valid messages to this
> address as detailed below and no progress has been made in resolving
> the matter.
>
> 1) The moderation system at chiark.greenend.org.uk "chiark" rejects
> all messages from hotmail addresses to the moderators.
> 2) The mail handling system known as "SAUCE" at chiark uses a sender
> verification system which is known to be faulty, causing hotmail
> and most probably other services to reject messages from chiark.
> This means that even if the moderators were to recieve a message
> from a hotmail or other affected user they have no means of reply.
> 3) SAUCE is deliberately designed to reject a wide range of otherwise
> deliverable messages under the pretense of spam filtering for
> technical reasons which are beyond the control of ordinary users
> who may wish to contact the moderators. This leads to the rejection
> of messages, the scope of this problem being wide but difficult
> to accurately evaluate.
> 4) The SAUCE webpage athttp://www.gnu.org/software/sauce/indicates
> that the software author is the same person as the administrator
> of chiark. This may well explain the obstinancy of the administrator
> in failing to address the known problems.
On the one hand, I think Mr.Jackson is Wrong about various email
things, specifically in this matter. That's just my opinion btw, and I
have no desire to debate the ins and outs of SMTP with him or any of
his supporters.
On the other hand, I think this response is petty and overblown
compared to how serious the issue is; emailing the moderators is going
to be quite a rare thing; for those who do, it'll only affect a tiny
minority of users; failing that, make a fuss on u.n.n.m. if you want
to discuss things with the moderators. Simply put, it is not enough of
a big deal to justify disrupting a fairly lively-looking and popular
group, uk.r.c.m. Nor do I think it is serious enough to justify
putting this much stress on the existing moderators, even of some of
them are stubborn prats.
Furthermore, I suspect that if this proposal succeeds in persuading
Mr.Jackson to give in, it could open the floodgates to vexatious rules
lawyering[1] further down the line unless you are very specific about
the desired outcome. In your view, should the moderator contact
address have no spam filtering on it at all, use a specific designated
spam-filter, or use only specifically named techniques? If this is not
carefully answered, then later on somebody with an axe to grind could
email the moderators with a handcrafted email designed to make the new
and improved spam filtering configuration swallow it, start screaming
bloody murder, and this whole thing starts over again.
To emphasise my question; what kind of spamfiltering do you think the
moderators should be permitted to use on the contact address, or none
at all?
Regards,
Trollsworth
[1] - I am not suggesting that this is what you are doing, and believe
you are acting in good faith. I'm sure we can think of people who
would be vexatious though.
Andy Leighton
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>
>> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
> another RFD on the subject?
Yes - but at the moment this is a draft RFD and not a real one. crn
is basically flying a kite in preparation for a formal RFD. Some
might consider it bad form in not waiting the 3 months anyway.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Jon Ribbens
> Whatever happened to be liberal in what you require but conservative
> in what you do? I thought that was a tenet of good design, myself...
No, the "liberal in what you accept" part turned out to be a disaster.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
The moderators have not responded.
Some have been influenced by scare stories about a deluge of spam
which is simply never going to happen. Others have yet to understand
that there is a serious problem with falsely rejected messages.
It is not unreasonable to expect that when they understand the issues
they will be sensible.
The joker in the pack is one man who seems determined to wreck the
show in his personal crusade against spam despite there
being no evidence that any moderators list has ever experienced
a significant spam problem.
I believe that common sense will prevail but if we do not show that
we have teeth nothing will happen.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>
> > DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
> another RFD on the subject?
Good question. I believe that this is a new subject but this is
open to interpretation.
Hopefully the matter can be resolved without the need for a formal RFD.
Alan LeHun
c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com says...
>
> This is the beginning of a formal proceedure.
>
It only becomes formal when the RFD is officially posted in
unna.
--
Alan LeHun
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> To emphasise my question; what kind of spamfiltering do you think the
> moderators should be permitted to use on the contact address, or none
> at all?
Having been a moderator of one group and having been in regular contact
with the moderators of several others there is no evidence to suggest
that spam has ever been a problem for the contact address.
On this basis I would suggest that the risk of false positives outweighs
the marginal benefit of any filtering.
In the unlikely event of spam becoming a significant problem there is
no reason why an appropriate and proportional level of filtering can
not be added as required.
The problem here is that urcm is applying an extreme level of paranoid
filtering to combat a problem which does not exist. This causes an
unacceptable level of rejected messages.
Denis McMahon
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
It's not a draft rfd, it's a statement of intent to issue an rfd.
Rfding a fix will fail, because the urcm users who don't like judith
will walk all over the vote.
Likewise I suspect that should the committee try and impose it's will
(and it can do two things, it can impose new volunteer moderators on the
group, or it can rmgroup) would lead to a committee vonc led by the
users of urcm.
Of course, the thing with a vonc is that even if the committee lose,
they're still the committee.
This brings us back to the fact that the problem can be fixed in one of
the following ways:
a) urcm moderators can fix the problems that have been identified.
b) committee can call for for volunteer moderators to set up an
alternative moderation system and instruct control to issue appropriate
control messages.
c) committee can instruct control to rmgroup urcm.
Note that b and c fall within the committee ToR of "The committee is
concerned with issues such as naming, voting and management of the
hierarchy." This is a hierarchy management issue. Moderation of a
moderated group is a delegated hierarchy management function, if the
people it's delegated to aren't doing it properly the higher level of
management can delegate it to someone else.
I'm quite happy to part of a team of volunteer moderators for urcm, I
believe I know spam when I see it, am reasonably competent at
recognising trolling, can read a group charter, and believe I can
interface with stump by email or using the web interface (if it's been
implemented at moderation.org.uk?). Additionally I believe I have no
"history" in urcm politics.
I'd suggest that ideally 5 ~ 7 people would be needed. Certainly no less
than 3, and more than 9 would probably be excessive. If members from any
"faction" related to the current urcm politicking is to be included,
members from all such factions should be included. Mentally I have two
"factions" in my head at the moment, which broadly fall into the
categories "urcm" and "judith".
Should the existing moderation system be fixed, then the committee could
return moderation of the group to the current moderators.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com considered Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC)
> the perfect time to write:
>
> > DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> >
> > uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
> > despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
> > of being resolved and techical advice from myself
> > and others has been effectively ignored.
> >
> postmaster?
That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
[snip]
> You've already shown that you can't do technical - sending mail to the
> correct address is pretty basic stuff.
WRONG. It was sent to the correct address.
[snip]
> Is that the known problem of it not redirecting wrongly addressed
> mail?
The mail was correctly addressed.
Whose sock puppet are you ?.
Jim Crowther
>Your technical advice including lying about sending mail to postmaster?
We have (and never will, probably) know what re-writing or explosion of
addresses applies to that particular postmaster address. It may be just
a simple, single mailbox, but there's no proof or way of finding out if
that was the case at the time of 'that email'.
We don't even know if IJ actually collects mail directly from the
postmaster address - there's nothing that says he should. And it's his
mail-swerver...
--
Jim Crowther
Owen Rees
<hf8vsl$akq$1...@news.albasani.net>:
> Should the matter not be resolved forthwith I intend
> to ask control to issue a formal RFD to replace the
> existing moderators with a team capable of providing
> a service which is fit for purpose.
>
It will not be sufficient to ask that the current moderators be replaced
by an unspecified other set of moderators. In order to gain my support
an RFD for a change of moderators would have to name the proposed new
moderators, explain why the new moderators would be better than the
existing moderators, and why the perceived problem would be fixed by
replacing the moderators.
It is not sufficient for an RFD to identify a problem, it must propose a
solution that solves the problem without creating more problems than it
solves.
--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>
Denis McMahon
> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com considered Thu, 3 Dec 2009 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC)
>> the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>>
>>> Summary: The mechanism for contacting the moderators of
>>> uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
>>> despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
>>> of being resolved and techical advice from myself
>>> and others has been effectively ignored.
>>>
>> Your technical advice including lying about sending mail to
>> postmaster?
>
> That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
> punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
Ian's posted a log that appears to show rcpt-to for ijackson, not
postmaster.
As the rcpt-to is sent by the delivering mta, that suggests that before
mail delivery to chiark was attempted, the mail was addressed to
ijackson and not postmaster.
I haven't seen you dispute that log.
In fact, as far as I can see, your response to that log was a deafening
silence.
Most notably, you didn't accuse Ian of faking it, which given previous
exchanges, I'm pretty sure you would have done if you had checked and
discovered that you definitely sent the message addressed to postmaster!
Now I'm generally tending to agree that in so far as it's been described
both by ian and others, sauce as configured at chiark for the urcm mods
is sufficiently unfriendly that it's not fit for purpose, but on this
specific issue, I think your own silence when faced with ian's logs
spoke volumes.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Jim A
> This affects more than a small set of people.
> One of the principles of a moderated newsgroup is that ANY user can
> ask for the help or opinions of the moderation team, for example to
> find an acceptable wording for a contentious issue prior to posting.
> Without this facility the moderators become unaccountable censors
> which is not acceptable.
>
Censorship is sole reason for the existence of a moderated group.
Personally I don't think the moderators need to be accountable. The
proof of the pudding, so they say, is in the eating.
Matthew Vernon
> In uk.net.news.config, on Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:17:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> >Your technical advice including lying about sending mail to postmaster?
>
> We have (and never will, probably) know what re-writing or explosion
> of addresses applies to that particular postmaster address. It may be
> just a simple, single mailbox, but there's no proof or way of finding
> out if that was the case at the time of 'that email'.
We know from the log posted that the *sending* MTA was sending to
ijackson not postmaster.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Matthew Vernon
> Likewise I suspect that should the committee try and impose it's will
> (and it can do two things, it can impose new volunteer moderators on
> the group, or it can rmgroup) would lead to a committee vonc led by
> the users of urcm.
I'm pretty sure the committee can do neither without an RFD/CFV
process first.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >
> > That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
> > punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
>
> Ian's posted a log that appears to show rcpt-to for ijackson, not
> postmaster.
My logs indicate otherwise.
> As the rcpt-to is sent by the delivering mta, that suggests that before
> mail delivery to chiark was attempted, the mail was addressed to
> ijackson and not postmaster.
I have no idea how SAUCE works.
> I haven't seen you dispute that log.
> In fact, as far as I can see, your response to that log was a deafening
> silence.
Look again - I responded with a comment about resistance to clue.
> Most notably, you didn't accuse Ian of faking it, which given previous
> exchanges, I'm pretty sure you would have done if you had checked and
> discovered that you definitely sent the message addressed to postmaster!
There was not enough evidence to support a public accusation of faking,
it is entirely possible that software issues are involved.
At this point I discovered that SAUCE is Ian's pet project rather than
independant software which changes the entire context of the dispute.
> Now I'm generally tending to agree that in so far as it's been described
> both by ian and others, sauce as configured at chiark for the urcm mods
> is sufficiently unfriendly that it's not fit for purpose, but on this
> specific issue, I think your own silence when faced with ian's logs
> spoke volumes.
Things are not always as they first appear.
Argueing with Ian is futile. The moderators are the responsible body.
The moderation team are free to chose their service provider, It is
their responsibility to ensure that their system is fit for purpose.
Tony Finch
>Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
>>> punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
>>
>> Ian's posted a log that appears to show rcpt-to for ijackson, not
>> postmaster.
>
> My logs indicate otherwise.
Could you post them please?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
FITZROY SOLE: SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, PERHAPS SEVERE GALE 9 LATER. VERY ROUGH
OR HIGH. RAIN OR SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR POOR.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
> >Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
> >>> punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
> >>
> >> Ian's posted a log that appears to show rcpt-to for ijackson, not
> >> postmaster.
> >
> > My logs indicate otherwise.
>
> Could you post them please?
I could, but it would only encourage more mudslinging and divert more
attention from the real issues under discussion.
Nice bait - but I would rather concentrate on solving the problems.
d...@telent.net
My reading of Ian's log is that it purports to be a raw listing of the
SMTP commands that your client sent to his server, and as such would
operate before any alias expansion of the kind that you claimed
happened. If you understand SMTP at the level that you seem to, you
must also see that your claim to have logs that "indicate otherwise" is
tantamount to an accusation that he has doctored or faked the log he is
showing us. This is itself mudslinging, and the grown-up thing for you
to do at this point would be to post your logs so we can see where the
actual issue is.
-dan
Jon Ribbens
I guess that answers that one.
Andrew Mobbs
>Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>>
>> > DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>> Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
>> another RFD on the subject?
>
>Good question. I believe that this is a new subject but this is
>open to interpretation.
The CFV, as emailed, contained an initial moderation policy, including
what the moderators consider their official contact address (I realise
this differs from what the Committee consider the official contact
address), and a URL for a web page containing instructions on how to
contact the moderators if there was a problem with the official
address.
It seems fairly clear that the proposed RFD covers ground that was
part of the initial CFV.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Eleanor Blair
>
>The problem here is that urcm is applying an extreme level of paranoid
>filtering to combat a problem which does not exist. This causes an
>unacceptable level of rejected messages.
Much as the spam filtering policy on the contact address may seem to be
overkill (in the absence of any actual spam problem) I think any
pressure to replace the moderators over it is also overkill (in the
absence of any actual problem in contacting them).
So far there has been almost no difficulty, and what there has been has
been worked around.
A.Lee
> crn wrote:
> >
> >The problem here is that urcm is applying an extreme level of paranoid
> >filtering to combat a problem which does not exist. This causes an
> >unacceptable level of rejected messages.
...
> So far there has been almost no difficulty, and what there has been has
> been worked around.
Slaps head multiple times.
Yes, we know there is a 'work around'.
The thing is, there shouldnt need to be a 'work around'. The usual
address should work out of the box. The Moderators are being stupidly
stupid in not making such a small change to the email settings.
The consensus is that the address should not be filtered, they are being
too stubborn for their own good in continuing to block some messages,
and in so doing have lost the vast majority of goodwill that they had.
The same is true of the proponent and his sidekick, after the group was
formed.They started a whinge fest, when there was no need.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com
Your opinion about Tony is clearly different to mine then.
I'd like to see the logs too. Do they show that postmaster gets
re-written to ij for example?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Eleanor Blair
>The thing is, there shouldnt need to be a 'work around'. The usual
>address should work out of the box. The Moderators are being stupidly
>stupid in not making such a small change to the email settings.
I think you missed my point.
I personally would *prefer* the moderators to use less draconian
filtering: and certainly wouldn't choose to use it myself, but even if I
thought they *ought* to change it I still think this RFD is like using a
sledgehammer to break a very small nut.
kat
Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> said
> A.Lee wrote:
>> The thing is, there shouldnt need to be a 'work around'. The usual
>> address should work out of the box. The Moderators are being stupidly
>> stupid in not making such a small change to the email settings.
>
> I think you missed my point.
>
> I personally would *prefer* the moderators to use less draconian
> filtering: and certainly wouldn't choose to use it myself, but even
> if I thought they *ought* to change it I still think this RFD is like
> using a sledgehammer to break a very small nut.
I think we are dealing with some rather big nuts., but maybe roasting them
would be better.
--
kat
>^..^<
Adam Funk
> I personally would *prefer* the moderators to use less draconian
> filtering: and certainly wouldn't choose to use it myself, but even if I
> thought they *ought* to change it I still think this RFD is like using a
> sledgehammer to break a very small nut.
URCM is what is set out to be: a civil, interesting, informative
group. I think we should let the dust settle before worrying about
trivia like this, especially since a lot of people suspect that the
set of complainants consists of one disruptive troll. (Of course, if
that's not the case, the complainant could always ask the committee to
publish his or her identity to disprove the suspicions.)
Danny Colyer
> The consensus is that the address should not be filtered,
I have seen no sign of any such consensus.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk>
>A.Lee wrote:
>>The thing is, there shouldnt need to be a 'work around'. The usual
>>address should work out of the box. The Moderators are being stupidly
>>stupid in not making such a small change to the email settings.
>
>I think you missed my point.
>
>I personally would *prefer* the moderators to use less draconian
>filtering: and certainly wouldn't choose to use it myself, but even if I
>thought they *ought* to change it I still think this RFD is like using a
>sledgehammer to break a very small nut.
Nelson. Or was it the lipstick lady that might have understood that?
I sort of apologize if you all seem the same to me.
Denis McMahon
> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Likewise I suspect that should the committee try and impose it's will
>> (and it can do two things, it can impose new volunteer moderators on
>> the group, or it can rmgroup) would lead to a committee vonc led by
>> the users of urcm.
>
> I'm pretty sure the committee can do neither without an RFD/CFV
> process first.
Like I said, the terms of reference of the committee are pretty broad.
They don't actually need an rfd or a cfv to do anything.
There is, for example, no clause that prevents the committee fixing a
problem. It might be argued that it's implied, but it's certainly not
explicitly stated that committee can only act following an rfd / cfv.
People might argue that it's implied, but then people can argue that the
ToR which says "The committee is concerned with issues such as naming,
voting and management of the hierarchy" implies that the committee can
take whatever steps they feel necessary to ensure the correct operation
of the hierarchy.
If the committee collectively thinks that something is broke (eg the
urcm moderation system) it could be argued that they are in fact
instructed by the ToR to try and fix it.
It could also be argued that they are not constrained to implementing
such fixes by way of rfds and cfvs.
Suppose chiark goes off the air one day with no explanation. No-one is
able to contact Ian Jackson. Place aside any discussion about the
likelihood of it happening, and place yourself in the scenario that it
has happened. Would committee have to wait for a formal rfd process to
complete before switching moderation to a replacement system? Or would
they be justified in doing so straight away. If not straight away, how
long should they wait? Given that for my scenario, the length of wait
will not change the situation. Should they wait for a day, a week, a
month, a year?
Now, instead of having this argument, let's all skip to the endgame. It
will be much easier. Control has the pgp keys to the hierarchy. If the
problem isn't fixed by the people to whom the issue is currently
delegated (the urcm moderation team), the issue can be delegated to
other people who are willing to fix it. This is a talking shop. There is
a problem that has been identified. It needs to be fixed. The people who
are in a position to resolve the issue at the moment are the urcm
moderators. They can fix the problem, or the ability to fix the problem
can be taken away from them and placed somewhere else.
Perhaps they would be better off occupying their time with fixing the
problem rather than arguing over whether they should be told it needs
fixing. If they still can't collectively accept that there is a problem
that needs fixing, despite Ian Jackson's posts which clearly indicate
that there is indeed a problem, then they're not collectively competent
to be moderating urcm and committee needs to act to address that issue.
There is a technical element to the moderation of urcm, it is broken, it
needs to be fixed.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Robin Stevens
> > The consensus is that the address should not be filtered,
> I have seen no sign of any such consensus.
Indeed, if the address is unfiltered and spam volumes to the address
increase significantly (as can be expected over time), then I think
there's a distinct possibility that a genuine email gets overlooked
among the noise. At which point, depending on the sender, there may
well be a fuss kicked up about the moderators ignoring the message and
the name-calling starts all over again.
As a recipient of mails to several completely unfiltered role addresses,
I find the spam/malware volumes considerable (several tens per day), and
I've been known to overlook genuine stuff among it. Including one
message that proved to be really quite important (oops). It's hard to
get the balance right.
Now, perhaps one should rely on the fact that it's unlikely that *all*
moderators' wetware will overlook the same genuine message and err on
the side of little or no filtering. But it raises the question of how
much effort one should reasonably expect them, as a bunch of unpaid
volunteers, to spend sifting through the haystack of spam to find the
occasional needle. At least I get paid to go through mine.
Personally, I think we'd probably be happier all round if there were no
smtp-time rejection but the moderators were free to apply their own
heuristics at a later stage, particularly if it were agreed that someone
would periodically check their reject folder just in case. But it's not
my decision to make.
--
Robin Stevens <re...@cynic.org.uk>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
Denis McMahon
> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That is simply not true. I did not lie and you are deserving of a neat
>>> punch on the snout for making an allegation for which you have no proof.
>> Ian's posted a log that appears to show rcpt-to for ijackson, not
>> postmaster.
>
> My logs indicate otherwise.
>
>> As the rcpt-to is sent by the delivering mta, that suggests that before
>> mail delivery to chiark was attempted, the mail was addressed to
>> ijackson and not postmaster.
>
> I have no idea how SAUCE works.
Irrelevant.
rcpt-to is sent be the system trying to deliver the mail. It's the
equivalent to the *delivery* postman saying "I have a letter for x, do
you want it"
2009-12-02 14:29:23 GMT: reject: command host="[79.135.103.194]"
from=crn@**** cmd="RCPT To:<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>"
So, when the message was delivered to chiark from mail.netunix.com,
mail.netunix.com said "I have a mail for ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
The message was addressed to ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk before
sauce got it's hands on it.
> Look again - I responded with a comment about resistance to clue.
Yes, that's not disputing the log, that's ignoring what the log shows.
You don't need to understand the internal workings of sauce to decipher
the log entry. Your inability to understand what that line shows is more
indicative of your own understanding of smtp than it is of anything else.
>> Most notably, you didn't accuse Ian of faking it, which given previous
>> exchanges, I'm pretty sure you would have done if you had checked and
>> discovered that you definitely sent the message addressed to postmaster!
>
> There was not enough evidence to support a public accusation of faking,
> it is entirely possible that software issues are involved.
> At this point I discovered that SAUCE is Ian's pet project rather than
> independant software which changes the entire context of the dispute.
Nope. Ian was quite clearly stating in posting that line that, when
mail.netunix.com tried to deliver the mail, it delivered it with a
delivery address of "ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk". If you didn't
understand that this was what was implied by the posting of the rcpt-to
line, then it's your technical ability that this calls into question.
>> Now I'm generally tending to agree that in so far as it's been described
>> both by ian and others, sauce as configured at chiark for the urcm mods
>> is sufficiently unfriendly that it's not fit for purpose, but on this
>> specific issue, I think your own silence when faced with ian's logs
>> spoke volumes.
>
> Things are not always as they first appear.
Agreed. But there is only one meaning of a rcpt-to line, and your
failure to recognise what ian was saying by posting it points more to
your own technical abilities than anyone elses.
You have clearly indicated that you did not recognise the significance
of that extract from ian's logs.
> Argueing with Ian is futile. The moderators are the responsible body.
> The moderation team are free to chose their service provider, It is
> their responsibility to ensure that their system is fit for purpose.
I agree that arguing with Ian seems to be futile. I agree that it is up
to the urcm moderators to collectively try and resolve the problem. I
also think that your specific evidence of failure at chiark is in fact
evidence of your own technical understanding and ability, and so far, on
that count, it's a 0-0 draw.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Rob Morley
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> Yeah, looks like he needs enough time to write one before he can do
> that.
How long do you think it takes to type and run something like
cat email.log | sed s/ijackson/postmaster/g > fake.log
?
Or was it just another bitchy remark that you won't substantiate?
Wm...
<NrmdnWy1NaY39oTW...@brightview.co.uk> uk.net.news.config
Danny Colyer <danny_...@hotmail.com>
>On 04/12/2009 18:08, A.Lee wrote:
>> The consensus is that the address should not be filtered,
>
>I have seen no sign of any such consensus.
Danny ought to know better than Mr Lee.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>The major problem here is that Ian is the author of SAUCE and thus
>believes that his system is the answer to life, the universe and
>everything. He is proud of his project but lacks the broad overview
>of reality and the needs of a system serving the real world.
I think you are probably right. And I can also see why he would be
unwilling to change when the major source of agitation for change is
also the major reason for needing a moderated group in the first
place.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:19:07 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> >The major problem here is that Ian is the author of SAUCE and thus
> >believes that his system is the answer to life, the universe and
> >everything. He is proud of his project but lacks the broad overview
> >of reality and the needs of a system serving the real world.
>
> I think you are probably right. And I can also see why he would be
> unwilling to change when the major source of agitation for change is
> also the major reason for needing a moderated group in the first
> place.
Sorry, Guy, I may be missing something but who is this major source
of agitation ?.
It seems to me that some unknown personality clash might be involved
but I fail to see what that has to do with the technical fact that
something is broken and needs to be fixed.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> Danny Colyer <danny_...@hotmail.com> wrote in uk.net.news.config:
> > On 04/12/2009 18:08, A.Lee wrote:
> > > The consensus is that the address should not be filtered,
>
> > I have seen no sign of any such consensus.
>
> Indeed, if the address is unfiltered and spam volumes to the address
> increase significantly (as can be expected over time), then I think
> there's a distinct possibility that a genuine email gets overlooked
> among the noise. At which point, depending on the sender, there may
> well be a fuss kicked up about the moderators ignoring the message and
> the name-calling starts all over again.
[big snip of sensible comment]
Yebbut there is no evidence of spam being a problem for the address
concerned or, in my experience, other moderator contact addresses.
The current filtering is totally over the top for a problem which
does not exist.
If spam becomes a problem in the future there is no reason why some
sensible filtering should not be added as required.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>Sorry, Guy, I may be missing something but who is this major source
>of agitation ?.
jms
>It seems to me that some unknown personality clash might be involved
>but I fail to see what that has to do with the technical fact that
>something is broken and needs to be fixed.
Broken? Not really. But inappropriately configured. And yes, it
needs to be fixed.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
[ big snip ]
>
> Nope. Ian was quite clearly stating in posting that line that, when
> mail.netunix.com tried to deliver the mail, it delivered it with a
> delivery address of "ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk". If you didn't
> understand that this was what was implied by the posting of the rcpt-to
> line, then it's your technical ability that this calls into question.
It was my considered choice not to accuse Ian of fakery or of moving
the goalposts. To do so would have only inflamed an already pointless
argument. Nothing is likely to change his opinions. He is largely
irrelevant to the real problem because the moderation team is free
to choose another service if that is what it takes.
> >> Now I'm generally tending to agree that in so far as it's been described
> >> both by ian and others, sauce as configured at chiark for the urcm mods
> >> is sufficiently unfriendly that it's not fit for purpose, but on this
> >> specific issue, I think your own silence when faced with ian's logs
> >> spoke volumes.
> >
> > Things are not always as they first appear.
>
> Agreed. But there is only one meaning of a rcpt-to line, and your
> failure to recognise what ian was saying by posting it points more to
> your own technical abilities than anyone elses.
>
> You have clearly indicated that you did not recognise the significance
> of that extract from ian's logs.
As above, I deliberately refrained from taking the bait.
Anyone who knows me will agree that my knowlede of email protocols in
general and my ability to fettle sendmail.cf in particular are
legendary in the certain parts of the IT industry.
> > Argueing with Ian is futile. The moderators are the responsible body.
> > The moderation team are free to chose their service provider, It is
> > their responsibility to ensure that their system is fit for purpose.
>
> I agree that arguing with Ian seems to be futile. I agree that it is up
> to the urcm moderators to collectively try and resolve the problem. I
> also think that your specific evidence of failure at chiark is in fact
> evidence of your own technical understanding and ability, and so far, on
> that count, it's a 0-0 draw.
You probably do not know me so your comments are forgiven B-).
Many things are not, indeed, as they first appear.
Be well.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Now, instead of having this argument, let's all skip to the endgame. It
> will be much easier. Control has the pgp keys to the hierarchy. If the
> problem isn't fixed by the people to whom the issue is currently
> delegated (the urcm moderation team), the issue can be delegated to
> other people who are willing to fix it. This is a talking shop. There is
> a problem that has been identified. It needs to be fixed. The people who
> are in a position to resolve the issue at the moment are the urcm
> moderators. They can fix the problem, or the ability to fix the problem
> can be taken away from them and placed somewhere else.
>
> Perhaps they would be better off occupying their time with fixing the
> problem rather than arguing over whether they should be told it needs
> fixing. If they still can't collectively accept that there is a problem
> that needs fixing, despite Ian Jackson's posts which clearly indicate
> that there is indeed a problem, then they're not collectively competent
> to be moderating urcm and committee needs to act to address that issue.
>
> There is a technical element to the moderation of urcm, it is broken, it
> needs to be fixed.
Amen brother.
At last someone who can see the wood for the trees.
Charles Lindsey
>c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
>another RFD on the subject?
The Guidelines actually state:
A proposal which has been the subject of a successful Fast Track, or of
any valid vote should not be brought up for discussion until at least 3
months have passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close
of the vote.
That it mentions the "close of the vote" rather than "the publication of
the results of the vote" might or might not be regarded as a Bug in the
Guidelines. But taking those words at their face value, the three months
is already up.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Tom Crispin
<c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>The Guidelines actually state:
>
> A proposal which has been the subject of a successful Fast Track, or of
> any valid vote should not be brought up for discussion until at least 3
> months have passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close
> of the vote.
>
>That it mentions the "close of the vote" rather than "the publication of
>the results of the vote" might or might not be regarded as a Bug in the
>Guidelines. But taking those words at their face value, the three months
>is already up.
I think that it might be worth waiting three months from the group's
creation before issuing any RFD to fix it: when things calm down here
a little Ian may decide to quietly fix his broken system.
A.Lee
> On 04/12/2009 18:08, A.Lee wrote:
> > The consensus is that the address should not be filtered,
>
> I have seen no sign of any such consensus.
The only people wanting to keep the block are the Moderators and one or
two others, almost everyone else who has posted on the subject say the
address should not be fitered.
I can't see why you (plural) are being so obstinate. It is such a minor
thing to do, and not doing it gives more ammunition to the main troll,
as well as alienating others who thought they were doing the right thing
by voting for the Group.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>I can't see why you (plural) are being so obstinate. It is such a minor
>thing to do, and not doing it gives more ammunition to the main troll,
>as well as alienating others who thought they were doing the right thing
>by voting for the Group.
Precisely.
Matthew Vernon
> The only people wanting to keep the block are the Moderators and one or
> two others, almost everyone else who has posted on the subject say the
> address should not be fitered.
That's not completely surprising, given that it's the Moderators whose
time is saved by spam-filtering.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
jms
wrote:
I am not quite sure why the identity of the complainant is relevant -
perhaps you could explain.
However - more to the point.
Chiark is broken.
Someone has complained to the committee
The committee have upheld the complaint.
Chiark needs mending.
Jackson knows how to mend it.
Jackson needs to mend it.
The problem is solved.
The debate stops.
jms
<ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I personally would *prefer* the moderators to use less draconian
>filtering: and certainly wouldn't choose to use it myself, but even if I
>thought they *ought* to change it I still think this RFD is like using a
>sledgehammer to break a very small nut.
"I still think this RFD is like using a
sledgehammer to break a very small nut."
Are you talking about Jackson?
jms
>Trollsworth LeTrole <trollswor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To emphasise my question; what kind of spamfiltering do you think the
>> moderators should be permitted to use on the contact address, or none
>> at all?
>
>Having been a moderator of one group and having been in regular contact
>with the moderators of several others there is no evidence to suggest
>that spam has ever been a problem for the contact address.
>
>On this basis I would suggest that the risk of false positives outweighs
>the marginal benefit of any filtering.
>In the unlikely event of spam becoming a significant problem there is
>no reason why an appropriate and proportional level of filtering can
>not be added as required.
>
>The problem here is that urcm is applying an extreme level of paranoid
>filtering to combat a problem which does not exist. This causes an
>unacceptable level of rejected messages.
Probably the most sensible post that has been written on this whole
issue.
kat
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> said
> alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) writes:
>
>> The only people wanting to keep the block are the Moderators and one
>> or two others, almost everyone else who has posted on the subject
>> say the address should not be fitered.
>
> That's not completely surprising, given that it's the Moderators whose
> time is saved by spam-filtering.
>
Quite. And I see that. But many of the people who think the filtering
wrong are also moderators or on similar mailing lists, and therefore have
the same "problem".
But - firstly, no-one knows just how much spam they would get if they made
this alteration, so, why don't you all get it changed and see what happens?
You might be surprised just how little it is.
Secondly, if there is a problem, there are other ways to deal with real spam
that don't make certain people who aren't spammers jump through hoops.
--
kat
>^..^<
jms
Jackson has known about this problem for years.
In July I said in a post:
"It was a very straightforward email; it doesn't bode well for the
future if such messages are to be filtered out by Jackson's system."
jms
wrote:
>alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) writes:
>
>> The only people wanting to keep the block are the Moderators and one or
>> two others, almost everyone else who has posted on the subject say the
>> address should not be fitered.
>
>That's not completely surprising, given that it's the Moderators whose
>time is saved by spam-filtering.
>
>Matthew
Just how much time do you think is being saved?
Pedt
2009, Charles Lindsey <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> wibbled
>In <7jeinbv...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk> Matthew Vernon
><mat...@debian.org> writes:
>
>>c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>
>>> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>>Don't you have to wait 3 months from the urcm vote before producing
>>another RFD on the subject?
>
>The Guidelines actually state:
>
> A proposal which has been the subject of a successful Fast Track, or of
> any valid vote should not be brought up for discussion until at least 3
> months have passed from the date of the Fast Track notice, or the close
> of the vote.
>
>That it mentions the "close of the vote" rather than "the publication of
>the results of the vote" might or might not be regarded as a Bug in the
>Guidelines. But taking those words at their face value, the three months
>is already up.
>
is posted, to be the RESULT: posting but agree it is a bit ambiguous at
the moment. I don't think that what UKV would define as 'close of the
vote' is applicable.
The other thought is that if an objection is upheld by the Committee and
that materially changes the result (i.e. a different Y/N, Condorcet, STV
result) then the later result posting should then apply.
In the end though, it's a "should" not a "shall" so Committee discretion
would still apply. I don't think this should be upgraded from a "should"
to a "shall".
Anyone any thoughts on this? I'd be quite happy to raise an RFD to
change ", or the close of the vote." to be ", the date of the result
posting, or the date of any later result posting if any objections to
the Committee are upheld that produce a different winner in Y/N,
Condorcet or STV votes." to make it clearer as it is now a possible
issue.
I'd view it as a minor tidying up and would go for an FT if there was
enough support and minimal objection that I didn't think well-founded
though I do still subscribe to the idea that a major change to the
Guidelines should go to a vote.
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Wm...
<IJbjjizS...@fishcake.eternal-september.org> uk.net.news.config
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
[stuff snipped, possibly too much, I trust Pedt to put stuff back if he
thinks it necessary, I did look at the Subject: line before snipping]
>I'd view it as a minor tidying up and would go for an FT if there was
>enough support and minimal objection that I didn't think well-founded
>though I do still subscribe to the idea that a major change to the
>Guidelines should go to a vote.
This should all be a minor tidying up exercise and if a change is going
to be made I'd prefer it to come from a cyclist.
urcm appears to have some issues about who it thinks is in charge.
Is it IanJ or the moderators?
Ian says it is the mods that are in charge and that they are telling him
to implement the blocking policy.
I also note that the mods were chosen by Ian so there is probably some
self reference going on too.
I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying it
is Ian.
Am I alone?
Pedt
2009, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wibbled
>Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:24:50
><IJbjjizS...@fishcake.eternal-september.org> uk.net.news.config
>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>
>[stuff snipped, possibly too much, I trust Pedt to put stuff back if he
>thinks it necessary, I did look at the Subject: line before snipping]
>
>>I'd view it as a minor tidying up and would go for an FT if there was
>>enough support and minimal objection that I didn't think well-founded
>>though I do still subscribe to the idea that a major change to the
>>Guidelines should go to a vote.
>
>This should all be a minor tidying up exercise and if a change is going
>to be made I'd prefer it to come from a cyclist.
I think you snipped a bit to much. I was responding to the point that
Charles made about 'close of the vote' in the Guidelines being a bit
ambiguous and a suggestion that perhaps a result posting should be made
equivalent to an FT posting (which is already there as a reference
point) to start the three months lapse before an RFD can be raised.
Personally, I wouldn't want one of the cyclists to raise an RFD as I was
quite disturbed about their plans in the hustings to make it very easy
to create groups but almost impossible to do anything else. I'd be
concerned that the minor tidying up change would be hijacked into a
rewrite of the whole guidelines.
[..]
>I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying it
>is Ian.
>
>Am I alone?
>
No.
The sooner that the cyclists get themselves sorted out and piss off out
of unnc/m the better IMO
Jonathan Amery
Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying it
>is Ian.
Message-ID for the mods saying Ian is in charge?
--
Jonathan Amery. Earth is the Lord's: it is ours to enjoy it,
##### Ours as his stewards, to farm and defend.
#######__o From its pollution, misuse, and destruction,
#######'/ Good Lord, deliver us, world without end! - F.P. Green
Jonathan Amery
>As above, I deliberately refrained from taking the bait.
>Anyone who knows me will agree that my knowlede of email protocols in
>general and my ability to fettle sendmail.cf in particular are
>legendary in the certain parts of the IT industry.
>
--
Jonathan Amery. Courage to strengthen,
##### Fire to blind, - Invocation against the
#######__o Music to dazzle, Aelfinn and Eelfinn
#######'/ Iron to bind. R.Jordan.
Jonathan Amery
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:51:07 +0000
>Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, looks like he needs enough time to write one before he can do
>> that.
>
>How long do you think it takes to type and run something like
>cat email.log | sed s/ijackson/postmaster/g > fake.log
>?
Superfluous 'cat' there.
Also, crn has failed to display that level of competence :-)
--
Jonathan Amery. inbox, n.:
##### A catch basin for everything you
#######__o don't want to deal with, but
#######'/ are afraid to throw away.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>In article <4xWIFbb6vtGLFwSU@[127.0.0.1]>,
>Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying it
>>is Ian.
>
> Message-ID for the mods saying Ian is in charge?
Try the first time Ian said who the mods were going to be.
I could look it up but you could too.
Alan Braggins
>d...@telent.net wrote:
>> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:
>>
>> > DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>
>> creation included the initial set of moderators. If this RFD proceeds
>> to the point of a vote, will it likewise be required to name the new mods?
>>
>> I imagine that the choice of replacements will influence voting.
>
>Hopefully a change will not be necessary, the purpose of the draft RFD
>is to formally identify the problems and encourage the moderation team
>to make appropriate arrangements
>either by persuading the owner of chiark to fix the problems or by
>moving the moderators mail facility elsewhere.
I think you need to decide what you are aiming for and change the RFD
appropriately.
If you want the current moderators to take the hypothetical problem that
someone from an ISP that doesn't like chiark might want to contact the
moderators without posting to the group and has difficulty following the
published instructions more seriously, I suggest you make the RFD say
that. I haven't consulted the other moderators, but I'm fairly sure
they would give far more weight to a successful CFV than an ultra vires
request by the committee. The RFD period shouldn't be long for that,
I doubt any of the issues haven't been covered already, though a formal
RFD might bring in fresh views.
If you want the committee to have the power to formally demand that
moderators change their hosting, spam filtering, or other arrangements
from those described in the discussion period of a successful CFV, then
put forward an RFD to say that. Since it would be a new subject, you
wouldn't even have to wait until the 3 months were unambiguously up.
If you want the moderators punished for their existing attitude by
making someone else do the work and take the grief from now on, but
you don't want to destroy the group, you need some credible alternative
moderators. And please don't throw me in that briar patch.
If you want the moderators punished for their existing attitude and
don't give a fuck about destroying the group and spoiling things for
other users, then don't mess about and RFD for removal.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
The proble is not hypothetical, it is very real.
The problem is not an ISP, The problem is broken software at chiark whic
affects many potential users.
Why not take you head out of the sand and fix the damn thing - it is BROKEN.
Owen Dunn
> I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying
> it is Ian.
Possibly I've not been reading closely enough, but I don't recall
seeing a moderator saying they wanted Ian to change the policy. Do
you have a reference for that?
(S)
Tom Crispin
> DRAFT RFD: CHANGE OF MODERATORS: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>Summary: The mechanism for contacting the moderators of
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated is not fit for purpose and
> despite long discussions the matter shows no signs
> of being resolved and techical advice from myself
> and others has been effectively ignored.
>
>Proposed action:
> Should the matter not be resolved forthwith I intend
> to ask control to issue a formal RFD to replace the
> existing moderators with a team capable of providing
> a service which is fit for purpose.
As an opponent of uk.rec.cycling.moderated, and as a long-term
contributor to uk.rec.cycling and now a contributor to
uk.rec.cycling.moderated, I feel that replacing the entire moderation
team as a first step to their defiance of the uk.* committee an
over-reaction.
An RFD to modify the charter to include a line /requiring/ the group
administrator and moderators to follow instructions from the uk.*
committee would be a far more appropriate first step, in my opinion.
Then if, after a further three months, the group administrator and
moderators are still in defiance of the uk.* committee then they could
be usurped.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>An RFD to modify the charter to include a line /requiring/ the group
>administrator and moderators to follow instructions from the uk.*
>committee would be a far more appropriate first step, in my opinion.
I don't believe the komite has any such powers, and probably wouldn't
want them. It would be better if Ian simply stopped being pointlessly
stubborn. If it could subsequently be proven that the volume of spam
was unmanageable as a result, then the topic can be raised again. I
don't believe it would be.
Tony Finch
>
>Anyone who knows me will agree that my knowlede of email protocols in
>general and my ability to fettle sendmail.cf in particular are
>legendary in the certain parts of the IT industry.
It's odd that you didn't use Sendmail to deliver the rejected
message, as the mixed-case "MAIL From" and "RCPT To" reveal.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
HUMBER: CYCLONIC BECOMING SOUTHWESTERLY 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN OR
SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
> >
> >Anyone who knows me will agree that my knowlede of email protocols in
> >general and my ability to fettle sendmail.cf in particular are
> >legendary in the certain parts of the IT industry.
>
> It's odd that you didn't use Sendmail to deliver the rejected
> message, as the mixed-case "MAIL From" and "RCPT To" reveal.
That tells you more about the bogosity of the "reject" than about
my system, which does indeed use sendmail.
$ telnet mailgate.netunix.com smtp
220 mailgate.netunix.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.11/8.12.11; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 01:18:34GMT
quit
221 Closing connection. Good bye.
Yes I know its an old version ......
Jonathan Amery
Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 6 Dec 2009 01:59:37 <DHi*cq...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>uk.net.news.config Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>>In article <4xWIFbb6vtGLFwSU@[127.0.0.1]>,
>>Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I'm getting bored with Ian saying it is the mods and the mods saying it
>>>is Ian.
>>
>> Message-ID for the mods saying Ian is in charge?
>
>Try the first time Ian said who the mods were going to be.
Even if it were true that would be Ian saying Ian is in charge, which
since Ian has frequently stated that the mods are in charge...
>I could look it up but you could too.
I could, but I'm not the one asserting a contrafactual as if it were
meaningful.
--
Jonathan Amery. I get laziness for free with Haskell
##### so I don't have to think much
#######__o about how to implement it!
#######'/ - Mark Carroll
Clive D. W. Feather
>>An RFD to modify the charter to include a line /requiring/ the group
>>administrator and moderators to follow instructions from the uk.*
>>committee would be a far more appropriate first step, in my opinion.
>
>I don't believe the komite has any such powers,
If a charter change with that wording was successful, then the Committee
would have those powers, in respect of that group, by definition.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>If a charter change with that wording was successful, then the Committee
>would have those powers, in respect of that group, by definition.
But, to address the subsidiary clause, would it want them? I'm
guessing not. Better all round if Ian was simply to stop being
stubborn.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:45:58 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
><cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>
>>If a charter change with that wording was successful, then the Committee
>>would have those powers, in respect of that group, by definition.
>
>But, to address the subsidiary clause, would it want them? I'm
>guessing not. Better all round if Ian was simply to stop being
>stubborn.
Agreed. But if he refuses he is sticking two fingers up at the
committee. An appropriate measure would be to compel Ian to follow
instructions of the committee be modifying the urcm charter. If he
continues to be defiant then the nuclear option of a change of
moderators would be wholly appropriate.