RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

[sun flower]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated



*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Over the period since uk.rec.cycling.moderated (URCM) was formed in 2009
there have been a number of occasions where people have expressed disquiet
over the way that the moderation has been carried out. It is appreciated
that not all of the people can be pleased all of the time; however, it is
the proposer’s view that whilst comments and suggestions have already been
made to the moderators over their processes, there has been a reluctance to
take on board what has been suggested – even when there has been a
consensus in discussion that change was required. This RFD contains a
proposal to a change of the charter of URCM so that specific reservations
may be addressed by incorporating clear requirements of what is expected of
the moderators. The areas of concern which have been raised previously
which are to be addressed by this RFD are as follows:


1) Individual posters have been singled out for “special attention”,
which has included a deliberate delay of the processing of their posts.

2) Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
processing of their posts.

3) A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
decision.

4) A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.

5) Posts have been rejected based on the style of the poster or on an
assumption of the poster’s identity rather than on the content of the post.

6) Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected
posts have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been
totally ignored.

7) Subsequent to (6) above, specific requests have been made in the
appropriate newsgroup for information and clarification of their actions
from the moderators; these requests have been totally ignored.

8) The moderation software for URCM does not deal with any emails sent
to or from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of
the domain of the poster’s email address. This means that some posters are
not informed that their post has been received, accepted or rejected.
Similarly some emails to the official moderators’ email address are not
accepted by the moderation system.


PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated

It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated is
changed in the following fashion:

1) Replace the sentence: “The moderators may use whatever tools and
processes they collectively feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running
of the group.”

with the following sentence:

“The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as the
specific requirements of this charter are adhered to.”

2) Replace the sentence: “Decisions by individual moderators to
approve or reject a posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by
private email to the whole moderation panel.”

with the following sentence:

“Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to
close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole moderation
panel, or by a posting in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation. In this
case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the stated
newsgroup.

3) Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
Moderation Policy.

The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation actions
and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner. In
particular, the following principles will be adhered to:

a) All posters are treated equally and fairly.

b) No poster’s submissions will be intentionally delayed.

c) Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on
the identity, or presumed identity of the poster.

d) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise
a query in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation where a member of the
moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.

e) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the newsgroup
uk.net.news.moderation. A member of the moderation team will respond to
“valid” queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. “Valid”
queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators
will explain why, if they deem a query to not be “valid”.

f) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the
group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be
banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must
immediately inform the offender by email outlining the reason for this
action and its duration; the reason will also be posted in the newsgroup
uk.net.news.moderation.

g) All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a
consistent fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain
which is used by the poster.

END PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until September 2nd) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Proponent:
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBUDUyuWOfGXkh8vHZAQH5PwP+PKdjm0BdEmaz5EV5GsEyfBAhh7rX9tz1
r3lIcdng9PiCidwK4DIJQVTSCaHQR0/ixRRki9DgOhMHSjexoCbPct/1P2IFNsXm
bQ/YhMcjsJ/Sai/BzYKi0bxWpX6f6MZlWHYRyKQEiotyI31KyE43vYyT8HnsUk0A
FlFUz3bqhys=
=c9EW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Clive George]

On 22/08/2012 20:26, sun flower wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Woo hoo! This place has been a bit quiet recently.

Wonder how noisy it'll get...

[Cpt. Louis Renault]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:50:13 +0100
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> > Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> Woo hoo! This place has been a bit quiet recently.
>
> Wonder how noisy it'll get...

"Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the
usual number of posters."



Louis

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

>the proposer’s view that whilst comments and suggestions have already been

Apologies for the odd character encoding issues, that's my fault and will
be fixed in any subsequent RFD's if there are any, or before a formal CFV
if there is one.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Richard Kettlewell]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:
> sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> considered Wed, 22 Aug 2012
> 20:26:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
> *** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
> *** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
> *** Alert: Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
> *** Signer: uk.net.news.announce (0x21F2F1D9)
> *** Signed: 22/08/2012 20:27:53
> *** Verified: 23/08/2012 01:09:10

AFAICS the signature is in fact fine, and was made by the uk.* key
distributed with INN.

$ pwd
/var/spool/news/articles/uk/net/news/announce
$ head -18 3484
Path: nntp.anjou.terraraq.org.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!matrix.darkstorm.co.uk!.POSTED!matrix.darkstorm.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Subject: RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Followup-To: uk.net.news.config
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:26:44 +0100
Organization: just another hole in the fabric of the internet
Lines: 166
Sender: Tony Evans as Control <con...@usenet.org.uk>
Approved: Tony Evans as Control <con...@usenet.org.uk>
Message-ID: <rfd1-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120822192644$01...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
X-Trace: matrix.darkstorm.co.uk P95daQWsNmoG3uvfS0pb+QIUtBhliVWawXmhy9HsvlCrxVJzFFcZP0DqihDmc+xTn285vNlL+RGE4p43Ouyg8Q==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk
X-User-ID: 1rXVx37KLYclK/n9bb4agqaPG30J1B03I2esL/rRUbc=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IJV8rRyKgdZ3w0BR436apeAaqAg=
Xref: nntp.anjou.terraraq.org.uk uk.net.news.announce:3484 uk.net.news.config:142609 uk.rec.cycling.moderated:21801

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
$ gpg --verify 3484
gpg: Signature made Wed 22 Aug 2012 20:27:53 BST using RSA key ID 21F2F1D9
gpg: WARNING: digest algorithm MD5 is deprecated
gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq/weak-digest-algos.html for more information
gpg: Good signature from "uk.net.news.announce"
gpg: aka "<con...@usenet.org.uk>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 8F 93 15 FA C8 FD 6C 3B 88 1B 45 45 B2 71 09 12

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

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-08-23, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> considered Wed, 22 Aug 2012
> 20:26:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
> *** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
> *** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
> *** Alert: Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
> *** Signer: uk.net.news.announce (0x21F2F1D9)
> *** Signed: 22/08/2012 20:27:53
> *** Verified: 23/08/2012 01:09:10

Works for me:

gpg: Signature made Wed 22 Aug 2012 20:27:53 BST using RSA key ID 21F2F1D9

[Judith]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:25:01 +0100, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

>Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:
>> sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> considered Wed, 22 Aug 2012
>> 20:26:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>> *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>> *** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
>> *** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
>> *** Alert: Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
>> *** Signer: uk.net.news.announce (0x21F2F1D9)
>> *** Signed: 22/08/2012 20:27:53
>> *** Verified: 23/08/2012 01:09:10
>
>AFAICS the signature is in fact fine, and was made by the uk.* key
>distributed with INN.

perhaps Anchor's has the fuckwit recipient detector option enabled

[Pedt]

In message <06ta38d324u42be1k...@4ax.com>, at 01:09:50 on
Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> sniffed the air and
proclaimed

>*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>*** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
>*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.

Something appears to be awry with your computer system.

I agree with Richard and Jon that the RFD is correctly signed with
Control's key.

Screen grab from Turnpike showing this is here:
http://www.quackers.corner.btinternet.co.uk/gfx/rfd.gif

--
Pedt
Cryptic Clues Round 5, Number #3
If it sounds like you regret a sarcastic comment, plant it! (7)

[Judith]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:39:54 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
wrote:

>In message <06ta38d324u42be1k...@4ax.com>, at 01:09:50 on
>Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> sniffed the air and
>proclaimed
>
>>*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>>*** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
>>*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
>
>Something appears to be awry with your computer system.
>
>I agree with Richard and Jon that the RFD is correctly signed with
>Control's key.
>
>Screen grab from Turnpike showing this is here:
>http://www.quackers.corner.btinternet.co.uk/gfx/rfd.gif

Anchor Lee is a well known fuckwit in the cycling newsgroups

Note his posting time : most likely pissed as it is well known that he has a
problem in that area.

[Pedt]

In message <qdvc38d9tthcb6vq5...@4ax.com>, at 22:28:33 on
Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> sniffed the air and

proclaimed
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:39:54 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <06ta38d324u42be1k...@4ax.com>, at 01:09:50 on
>>Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> sniffed the air and
>>proclaimed
>>
>>>*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>>>*** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
>>>*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
>>
>>Something appears to be awry with your computer system.
>>
>>I agree with Richard and Jon that the RFD is correctly signed with
>>Control's key.
>>
>>Screen grab from Turnpike showing this is here:
>>http://www.quackers.corner.btinternet.co.uk/gfx/rfd.gif
>
>
>
>Anchor Lee is a well known fuckwit in the cycling newsgroups

Not relevant Judith. I was offering a further data point from a third
system unrelated to those of previous posters. If Phil's system is
fucked, I don't equate it to being a cyclist, just that summat is b0rked
on his computer that he needs to fix.

[Wm...]

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:26:44

<rfd1-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120822192644$01...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk
> uk.net.news.config sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>

[snips below; odd chars ignored, see Tony's posting in this thread]

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

>PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
>uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated is
>changed in the following fashion:
>

>1) Replace the sentence: “The moderators may use whatever tools and

>processes they collectively feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running

>of the group.�
>
>with the following sentence:
>
>“The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel

>appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as the

>specific requirements of this charter are adhered to.�

That looks circular to me.

>2) Replace the sentence: “Decisions by individual moderators to

>approve or reject a posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by

>private email to the whole moderation panel.�
>
>with the following sentence:
>
>“Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to

>close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole moderation
>panel, or by a posting in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation. In this
>case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the stated
>newsgroup.

That is de facto.

>3) Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
>Moderation Policy.
>
>The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation actions
>and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner. In
>particular, the following principles will be adhered to:
>
>a) All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>

>b) No poster’s submissions will be intentionally delayed.

>
>c) Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on
>the identity, or presumed identity of the poster.
>
>d) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise
>a query in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation where a member of the
>moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.

I think (d) should be dropped as un-enforceable. A query may be raised
but I don't see why a mod should have to respond. None of the uk.*
mod'd ng's have a compulsory right to reply in a separate group and I
think it would be a mistake if we approved such words.

>e) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the newsgroup
>uk.net.news.moderation. A member of the moderation team will respond to

>“valid� queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable
>time. “Valid�

>queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators

>will explain why, if they deem a query to not be “valid�.

see above

>f) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
>group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the
>group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be
>banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must
>immediately inform the offender by email outlining the reason for this
>action and its duration; the reason will also be posted in the newsgroup
>uk.net.news.moderation.

see above, it seems unreasonable for a separate group to be involved.
try asking for sanctions to be posted in the group itself is my
suggestion.

>g) All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a
>consistent fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain
>which is used by the poster.

I thought that had been dealt with.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-08-24 06:50:48 +0000, Wm... said:

> snip

>
>> g) All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a
>> consistent fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain
>> which is used by the poster.
>
> I thought that had been dealt with.

I believe it had been, until Microsoft sneakily brought out a new and
deeply sad webmail domain. I expect that is now dealt with again, but
who knows?

--

Percy Picacity

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:34:36 <5t40bi....@news.alt.net>
uk.net.news.config Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>

MS have confused my hotmail / skydrive / other identities, fortunately I
don't depend on them.

I don't know why certain people insist on using addresses that are know
to cause trouble in a group they apparently want to communicate with
people in.

I have a demon address (unlimited before the @), a hotmail address (live
it seems), yahoo, a personal domain and so on.

Why do some people not have the same choices and insist on (say) a
hotmail address when corresponding with people that don't like it?
Surely the obvious thing to do is to change from hotmail to live or
whatever it is called this week?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <jDTWyEVsTzNQFwGD@[127.0.0.1]>,

tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk (Wm...) wrote:

>
> Why do some people not have the same choices and insist on (say) a
> hotmail address when corresponding with people that don't like it?

It's not people that don't like it, in this case. It's Jackson being
bloody-minded about it, and not understanding that running a moderated
group means dealing with the spam.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Catching a train home from work

[Judith]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:48:15 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>

wrote:

>In message <qdvc38d9tthcb6vq5...@4ax.com>, at 22:28:33 on
>Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> sniffed the air and
>proclaimed
>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:39:54 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <06ta38d324u42be1k...@4ax.com>, at 01:09:50 on
>>>Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> sniffed the air and
>>>proclaimed
>>>
>>>>*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>>>>*** Status: Bad Signature from Invalid Key
>>>>*** Alert: Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.
>>>
>>>Something appears to be awry with your computer system.
>>>
>>>I agree with Richard and Jon that the RFD is correctly signed with
>>>Control's key.
>>>
>>>Screen grab from Turnpike showing this is here:
>>>http://www.quackers.corner.btinternet.co.uk/gfx/rfd.gif
>>
>>
>>
>>Anchor Lee is a well known fuckwit in the cycling newsgroups
>
>Not relevant Judith. I was offering a further data point from a third
>system unrelated to those of previous posters. If Phil's system is
>fucked, I don't equate it to being a cyclist, just that summat is b0rked
>on his computer that he needs to fix.

I am sorry - but I think it is relevant.

Did you not notice the post he made just one minute before his "Bad Signature
from Invalid Key" claim where he had said "Corrected version appear below." -
and then proceed to alter the text of Tony's declaration he was "quoting"?

Any view on that?

Perhaps he could explain what that was about?

Lee is a well known fuckwit who comes out with things like this - particularly
having had a drink. People then waste their own time investigating his claim -
when he has clearly done something wrong himself; it invariably means he
actually altered something he was quoting.

It is of course odd that he has offered no evidence for his spurious claim - or
responded to any of the other comments regarding the veracity of the post.

"Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:34:36 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

It isn't.

I have asked a question elsewhere - Jackson refuses to reply to it.
It is still an example of people using Microsoft accounts being penalised just
because of Jackson's fuckwittery. There is just no reason at all why the
action the moderators take with a particular post is totally dependent on the
user's email domain name.

[Judith]

No the obvious solution if for Jackson to stop arguing with Microsoft and treat
all posts the same - totally independent of the legitimate email address which
is used.

If in the charter, Jackson had said: "We will treat all posts and emails from
users of Microsoft systems totally differently from the way we deal with all
other posts" - you would have said - yep good idea, I'll go with that.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:34 +0100 (BST), uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul
Cummins) wrote:

>In article <jDTWyEVsTzNQFwGD@[127.0.0.1]>,
>tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk (Wm...) wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do some people not have the same choices and insist on (say) a
>> hotmail address when corresponding with people that don't like it?
>
>It's not people that don't like it, in this case. It's Jackson being
>bloody-minded about it, and not understanding that running a moderated
>group means dealing with the spam.

He has been asked how much spam he actually receives at the moderated group
from Microsoft addresses.

For some reason he has not answered.

Perhaps it is such a large number, he is still counting.


His, is a spurious argument.

[Pedt]

In message <2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com>, at 11:12:42 on
Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> sniffed the air and

My view is that the original RFD that is posted by Control on behalf of
a Proponent is the definitive one and that is what has to be discussed.

If it goes to a vote then only the one signed by Control is the one that
matters when it passed to UKV for preparation of the CFV (and I'd agree
with Tony posting as Control that UTF characters would be fixed to 7-bit
by the VT if that RFD goes to a vote and I'd suggest that it is covered
under the VTs remit in conducting the vote.).

If Phil has rewritten a posted RFD (and I will look) and claimed it has
an invalid key then Phil will get short shift from everyone. Whatever
you might think of the URCM Moderators, I'm sure that they would agree
that rewriting an RFD is not acceptable. If he is claiming that the RFD
posted by Control is invalid as he can't verify the signature then his
computer systems are at fault.

If your claim is in error, you'll no doubt be quite happy to be told
off.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:20:41 +0100, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@operations.force9.net>
wrote:

>--
>Pedt
> Cryptic Clues Round 5, Number #3
> If it sounds like you regret a sarcastic comment, plant it! (7)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cutting

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:12:42 <2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

>"Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)

Amusingly you have yet to establish why you should have any say wrt
cycling.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:22:28 <9cle38h5gdcrij1vf...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

>His, is a spurious argument.

Yours, is a broken english.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:20:44 <66le381qo1kg8dsrf...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

OK, let us do the obvious and say explicitly that people that use
hotmail addressees are not welcome.

It isn't as though we'll be losing a bunch of useful contributors.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:17:23 <pvke389sta7pkus94...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

>It isn't.
>
>I have asked a question elsewhere - Jackson refuses to reply to it.
>It is still an example of people using Microsoft accounts being penalised just
>because of Jackson's fuckwittery. There is just no reason at all why the
>action the moderators take with a particular post is totally dependent on the
>user's email domain name.

There is no reason for you to use a hotmail address for a specific,
moderated ng. grow up and use another address if you really want to get
your message through.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:38:11 +0100, "Wm..."
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:12:42 <2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
>
>>"Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)
>
>Amusingly you have yet to establish why you should have any say wrt
>cycling.

How about - I am a cyclist?

[Judith]

It is not just me.

If someone who has never ever used the group before starts posting - then how
will they know that their Microsoft email address is not welcome and they are
singled out for the special treatment.

I have not seen anyone agree with your view on this matter; have you?

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:18:26 <b83f381hjka4fhtjm...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

news to us

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:24:41 <0f3f38pfdjo153t9k...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

Obverse actually, as far as I can tell it is only you that has this
problem. Most adults have alternative addresses.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >It is not just me.
> >
> >If someone who has never ever used the group before starts posting - then how
> >will they know that their Microsoft email address is not welcome and they are
> >singled out for the special treatment.
> >
> >I have not seen anyone agree with your view on this matter; have you?
>
> Obverse actually, as far as I can tell it is only you that has this
> problem. Most adults have alternative addresses.

Thats a whoosh then.

Please read the question.
How does a new user who happens to have a microsoft address [1] know that they
have been arbitrarily banned before they have even posted their first
message.

[1] or an account at any of the many other services blocked by fuckwit
Jackson's broken filtering software.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <S7AaM4ajd4NQFwz3@[127.0.0.1]>,

Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:17:23 <pvke389sta7pkus94...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

>>I have asked a question elsewhere - Jackson refuses to reply to it.

You are in my killfile so naturally I don't reply to your posted
messages. If you have a question for the urcm moderation panel send
it to the moderators by email.

If that doesn't work or you have a question relating to your claimed
desire to contact the urcm moderators please email postmaster@chiark,
which will bypass the spamfilters. Or use a different email account
or ask Control to pass your message on, or something.

>There is no reason for you to use a hotmail address for a specific,
>moderated ng. grow up and use another address if you really want to get
>your message through.

But actually she just wants to complain.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Ian Jackson]

At the risk of feeding the trolls,

In article <rfd1-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120822192644$01...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>1) Individual posters have been singled out for “special attention”,
>which has included a deliberate delay of the processing of their posts.

This is false.

>2) Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
>processing of their posts.

This is not the case for any current posters and hasn't been for quite
some time.

>3) A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
>explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
>decision.

This is false. The procedure was very clear: the moderators
considered, collectively, that the user should be banned, and
therefore did so.

>4) A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.

This is not unusual or bad or wrong.

>5) Posts have been rejected based on the style of the poster or on an
>assumption of the poster’s identity rather than on the content of the post.

This is not the case. We have in general been very cautious about
rejecting messages simply because they appear to be in the style of
banned posters.

The complaint here relates to messages which were actually rejected
because they were shit-stirring.

>6) Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected
>posts have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been
>totally ignored.

We haven't received any such requests for a long time. Perhaps you
are referring to requests sent by email and unintentionally blocked by
the moderators' spamfilters. Any such blockages will be dealt with as
configuration bugs and fixed by me.

>8) The moderation software for URCM does not deal with any emails sent
>to or from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of
>the domain of the poster’s email address.

This is true. However, the implication is false. The moderation
mailing list host gives *specially generous* treatment to messages
from Hotmail. Ie Hotmail users are getting a special exemption.

Perhaps the Proponent would prefer us to remove the exemption,
treating all mail domains identically ? The result would be that, due
to the different behaviour of Hotmail to other mail providers,
messages from Hotmail's users wouldn't get through.

>PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
...
>“Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to

>close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole moderation
>panel, or by a posting in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation. In this
>case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the stated
>newsgroup.

This appears to forbid the moderators from holding private
conversations about such complaints. Surely that cannot be the
intent.

>3) Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
>Moderation Policy.

None of this is usefull enforcible. Obviously the moderators will
claim that they are complying with it, and aggrieved posters of
rejected messages will claim that they are not.

>e) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the newsgroup
>uk.net.news.moderation. A member of the moderation team will respond to

>“valid” queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. “Valid”

>queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators

>will explain why, if they deem a query to not be “valid”.

This forbids the moderators from operating a killfile in unnm.
That's obviously unreasonable.

>g) All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a
>consistent fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain
>which is used by the poster.

I see you want us to remove the Hotmail exception. I don't think
that's a very good idea. Perhaps the moderators will choose to ignore
this stricture, and instruct me to allow messages from Hotmail anyway.
What do you propose to do about it if they do that ?

[Tony]

> or ask Control to pass your message on

Or, don't. Thanks. Control isn't interested in personal disputes about
e-mail delivery.

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Ian Jackson]

In article <slrnk3f7g...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,

Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>or ask Control to pass your message on
>
>Or, don't. Thanks. Control isn't interested in personal disputes about
>e-mail delivery.

Sorry.

I thought that if someone genuinely couldn't reach the moderators
because of an unintentional email misconfiguration at the moderators'
end, you would be happy to pass the message on so that the problem
could be fixed.

If you're not willing to help in that way, that's fine. Sorry for
assuming.

[Mike Fleming]

In article <s9h*sG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I thought that if someone genuinely couldn't reach the moderators
> because of an unintentional email misconfiguration at the moderators'
> end, you would be happy to pass the message on so that the problem
> could be fixed.

What if someone can't reach the moderators because of an intentional
email configuration?

--
Mike Fleming

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-08-24 13:38:11 +0000, Wm... said:

> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:12:42 <2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com>
> uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
>
>> "Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)
>
> Amusingly you have yet to establish why you should have any say wrt cycling.

With regard to a uk.* cycling group, the only requirement to have a
say is to be a uk.* user with a contactable email address. This
competition for cycling credentials is a little ridiculous, although I
agree someone who thinks cyclists should never exceed walking pace is a
different kind of cyclist from many of us.


--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:24:47 +0100, "Wm..."

<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:18:26 <b83f381hjka4fhtjm...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
>>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:38:11 +0100, "Wm..."
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:12:42 <2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com>
>>>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)
>>>
>>>Amusingly you have yet to establish why you should have any say wrt
>>>cycling.
>>
>>
>>How about - I am a cyclist?
>
>news to us

Wm - you are a fool.

Please feel free to explain how so many people wasted their time telling me
that my Dutch bike was illegal in this country as it only has a back-pedal
brake.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:26:33 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

Oh - I have not seen anyone claim that - have you?

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:26:33 <5t531f....@news.alt.net>
uk.net.news.config Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>

>On 2012-08-24 13:38:11 +0000, Wm... said:
>
>> Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:12:42
>><2lke385eifds4no4b...@4ax.com> uk.net.news.config
>>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>
>>> "Cry too often, and upset the flow" (4)
>> Amusingly you have yet to establish why you should have any say wrt
>>cycling.
>
>With regard to a uk.* cycling group, the only requirement to have a
>say is to be a uk.* user with a contactable email address.

Judith fails on that surely?

> This competition for cycling credentials is a little ridiculous,
>although I agree someone who thinks cyclists should never exceed
>walking pace is a different kind of cyclist from many of us.

Paralympics are coming up, expect to see guys and gals doing stuff that
you and I could not achieve.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:01:11 <k184vn$mbp$1...@news.albasani.net>
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com

I think you need to take a poll and find out how many people start with
an MS address and never progress further.

I'm guessing about 5 people at most, clearly some people play stupid on
purpose.

MS offer me a variety of address options, I doubt you, I or Judith are
special.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:07:02 <74df381pbs0gqji7q...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk>

>What if someone can't reach the moderators because of an intentional
>email configuration?
>

I'd yell obtuse but ask if you have read Nikolai Gogol.

[Judith]

On 24 Aug 2012 16:17:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <S7AaM4ajd4NQFwz3@[127.0.0.1]>,
>Wm... <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:17:23 <pvke389sta7pkus94...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>I have asked a question elsewhere - Jackson refuses to reply to it.
>
>You are in my killfile so naturally I don't reply to your posted
>messages. If you have a question for the urcm moderation panel send
>it to the moderators by email.
>
>If that doesn't work or you have a question relating to your claimed
>desire to contact the urcm moderators please email postmaster@chiark,
>which will bypass the spamfilters. Or use a different email account
>or ask Control to pass your message on, or something.

Sorry sunshine - I am not playing your silly games - that route does not work.

I have recently emailed you at postm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk with a
question regarding my ban after other methods of attempting to contact you
failed.

You ignored the email.

Here is the email:

===========================================================================
Over a year ago, for some reason I never really understood, I was told
that I was not welcome in URCM.
Whilst I was told that I was not permanently banned - I was given no time-
scale for the ban.

I feel that the original ban was unfair, and I would like to understand the
current situation.

I am a cyclist - I am very keen and knowledgeable on some cycling matters, and
I think that I have much to contribute to the moderated group.

If I am still banned - then please can you tell me why - and for how long this
ban is going to last.

Regards

Judith Smith
===========================================================================

>But actually she just wants to complain.

Not at all.

To me - that seems a very reasonable question to email the moderators with.

Perhaps you can explain why you and the other moderators ignored the email and
the similar postings where I have raised questions addressed to URCM
moderators in unnm.

Perhaps you could then even respond to the questions. In unnm will be fine.

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:01:11 +0000 (UTC),
c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> >It is not just me.
>> >
>> >If someone who has never ever used the group before starts posting - then how
>> >will they know that their Microsoft email address is not welcome and they are
>> >singled out for the special treatment.
>> >
>> >I have not seen anyone agree with your view on this matter; have you?
>>
>> Obverse actually, as far as I can tell it is only you that has this
>> problem. Most adults have alternative addresses.
>
> Thats a whoosh then.
>
> Please read the question.
> How does a new user who happens to have a microsoft address [1] know that they
> have been arbitrarily banned before they have even posted their first
> message.

I just want to point out that no domain is banned from posting
articles to urcm. This is an easy fact to establish - it is a matter
of public record that urcm has had accepted articles from microsoft
domains (namely hotmail).


--
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_

[Andy Leighton]

NB: this is a personal response not a response from the "URCM moderators"

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:26:44 +0100, sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
> 1) Individual posters have been singled out for ???special attention???,

> which has included a deliberate delay of the processing of their posts.

Not true. Individual articles are singled out for closer attention
depending on subject matter and tone. If it is noticed that a poster is
regularly submitting such articles (whether accepted or not), that
poster will be marked for closer attention.

When moderating there are a number of reasons why I may skip over a
submitted article and not bother accepting or rejecting it. It could
be one of my articles (we try not to approve our own articles but leave
them for another moderator), the article might be in an adversarial
thread where I am participating (I would prefer some other moderator
to moderate there, so I am not in the position of controlling both
sides of the discussion), or it is in an article in a very active thread
(I may need to catch-up the discussion to judge repetition).

Some articles are marked as doubtful, and a query posted to the
moderators to have a quick discussion.

> 2) Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
> processing of their posts.

Nope. An individual poster. However this was due to multiple complaints of
inconsistency in moderation decisions. There was also complaints of
delay if we considered each post as a moderation group (and also that
wasn't very workable).

With a moderation panel it is inevitable that there are individual
tolerances for repetition, on-topicness, politeness, mission posting
so it isn't surprising that there are slight inconsistencies in
moderation decisions.

The alternative in that case was to put up with multiple complaints.
We were not willing to be berated in email, as well as being impolite,
it took a fair amount of time composing replies.

> 3) A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
> explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
> decision.

At the time I believe we explained the process (but I could be mistaken).

> 4) A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.

A single poster.

> 5) Posts have been rejected based on the style of the poster or on an

> assumption of the poster???s identity rather than on the content of the post.

Incorrect. You are listening to scuttlebutt by people who have posted
what some see as anti-cycling messages in the other cycling group. At
least one is a self-identified troll.

> 6) Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected
> posts have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been
> totally ignored.

They have not been received, so cannot have been ignored. Did you try
the fallback as detailed in the charter?

> 7) Subsequent to (6) above, specific requests have been made in the
> appropriate newsgroup for information and clarification of their actions
> from the moderators; these requests have been totally ignored.

Was this the question about banning procedure? I ignored this because I
thought you were not serious and I didn't know how to answer it. I find
it very odd that the first article submitted to a moderated newsgroup is
in essence "How do I get banned, and what process do you go through
when you do it?".

> 8) The moderation software for URCM does not deal with any emails sent
> to or from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of

> the domain of the poster???s email address. This means that some posters are
> not informed that their post has been received, accepted or rejected.
> Similarly some emails to the official moderators??? email address are not
> accepted by the moderation system.

Not true.

The moderation software works in exactly the same way (it is very consistent)
for all domains. When an article is submitted, an email is sent out to
the email address in the article. When an article is accepted /
rejected another email is sent out.

The fact that the emails are not getting through is nothing to do with
the moderation software.

The reason the emails are not getting through is because the microsft
email servers block emails from chiark. This is because of the sender
verification that chiark uses.


> PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
>
> 2) Replace the sentence: ???Decisions by individual moderators to

> approve or reject a posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by

> private email to the whole moderation panel.???
>
> with the following sentence:
>
> ???Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to

> close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole moderation
> panel, or by a posting in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation. In this
> case any ensuing discussion will take place in public in the stated
> newsgroup.

I would reject this. Generally over the past year and a half I can
remember very few "appeals" about closing threads or rejected articles.

>
> 3) Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled
> Moderation Policy.
>

> The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation actions
> and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner.

A "timely manner" is meaningless. Also all moderators (in all moderated
groups) are volunteers, a SLA should not be imposed upon them.

> In particular, the following principles will be adhered to:
>
> a) All posters are treated equally and fairly.

I partially reject this. At least equally. I will note that most other
uk moderated groups do not treat all posters equally. It will basically
mean that running a whitelist would be against the charter (if a poster
is on a whitelist then they are treated differently to people who are
not on the whitelist).

> c) Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on
> the identity, or presumed identity of the poster.

This means that any ban (which you agree should still be a sanction as
per section f) would be ineffective. New email addresses are easy to
obtain.

> d) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise
> a query in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation where a member of the
> moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.

Again 'reasonable time' is meaningless. Different people will have
different interpretations of what is reasonable. It also means that
one moderator needs to monitor unnm. Whilst I hope a couple of us
do keep an eye on unnm I don't think that can be mandated. Personally
I think that unnm is not a good avenue for this anyway. There will be
far too many people kibitzing on the thread for it to be sensible.

> e) Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the newsgroup
> uk.net.news.moderation. A member of the moderation team will respond to

> ???valid??? queries on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. ???Valid???

> queries will be those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators

> will explain why, if they deem a query to not be ???valid???.

Basically you want the moderators to dance to your tune? As someone
who I don't believe has had any article accepted in urcm (and I can't
remember seeing one which is particularly relevant to cycling in any
usenet group) it seems rather presumptuous. Personally I would find
such requests to have more weight if they were coming from someone with
a track record either in urcm, or someone who has a track record with
posting articles about cycling in general.

Although you seem conversant with the uk hierarchy's RFD process, I
can't see much history in newsgroups at all from you. I do know you
are using a relatively recently posting identity (because outlook.com
is a recent mail host). Maybe you have contributed under another
posting identity?

> f) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
> group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the
> group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be
> banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must
> immediately inform the offender by email outlining the reason for this
> action and its duration; the reason will also be posted in the newsgroup
> uk.net.news.moderation.

A 'fixed stated period'. So 100 years is OK?

> g) All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a
> consistent fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain
> which is used by the poster.

They already are. The normal email contact address does have sender
verification activated - but it does that for all email received
regardless of email domain. I think those technically conversant
readers who disagree with the sender verification system implemented
will agree that the MTA does not 'choose' to do different things
because it receives mail from a particular domain.

Once the email does get to the moderators we do not take in to
account the emailers domain when making any decision.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:16:28 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:01:11 +0000 (UTC),
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com <c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote:
>> Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>> >It is not just me.
>>> >
>>> >If someone who has never ever used the group before starts posting - then how
>>> >will they know that their Microsoft email address is not welcome and they are
>>> >singled out for the special treatment.
>>> >
>>> >I have not seen anyone agree with your view on this matter; have you?
>>>
>>> Obverse actually, as far as I can tell it is only you that has this
>>> problem. Most adults have alternative addresses.
>>
>> Thats a whoosh then.
>>
>> Please read the question.
>> How does a new user who happens to have a microsoft address [1] know that they
>> have been arbitrarily banned before they have even posted their first
>> message.
>
>I just want to point out that no domain is banned from posting
>articles to urcm. This is an easy fact to establish - it is a matter
>of public record that urcm has had accepted articles from microsoft
>domains (namely hotmail).

If someone makes posts from a Microsoft account how do they know if the
messages have been accepted or rejected. I understand that non-Microsoft users
get an email. Why the different treatment?

However you want to dress it up, Jackson treats Microsoft accounts differently
from all others and for no good reason.

He has been told about this time and time again.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> > Thats a whoosh then.
> >
> > Please read the question.
> > How does a new user who happens to have a microsoft address [1] know that they
> > have been arbitrarily banned before they have even posted their first
> > message.
>
> I just want to point out that no domain is banned from posting
> articles to urcm. This is an easy fact to establish - it is a matter
> of public record that urcm has had accepted articles from microsoft
> domains (namely hotmail).

You deleted my footnote which mentioned domains other than microsoft.
As a prime example the system dropped my postings silently on the
floor without even bothering to issue an RFC compliant reject.
On investigation it was found that chiark drops mail from any server
where the reverse and forward DNS do not match. The fuckwit responsible
claims that this is a feature not a bug. He would not recognise an RFC
compliant server if it bit him on the arse, There is NO REQUIREMENT
in the RFC that forward and reverse DNS should match and indeed a
mismatch is inevitable where, for example, a mail server is part
of a load sharing or failover cluster.

The only way to resolve the many issues regarding lost messages to
the the moderaton system and/or moderators address is to move the
system away from chiark and onto a properly managed RFC compliant
system where fuckwitjackson cannot screw things up with false
positives generated by his bogus anti-spam pet project.

It should not be necessary for users to jump through non-standard
hoops to post or to contact the moderators. The system is broken,
the person responsible obstinately refuses to fix it. Time to
admit that the system is broken and move to a properly
configured and maintained server.

.
.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:39:58 <5tsf38hh4plqb0vuj...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

>I am a cyclist - I am very keen and knowledgeable on some cycling matters, and
>I think that I have much to contribute to the moderated group.

describe your bicycle

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:

>NB: this is a personal response not a response from the "URCM moderators"
>
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:26:44 +0100, sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

>> d) In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise
>> a query in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation where a member of the
>> moderation team will respond to the query in a reasonable time.

>Again 'reasonable time' is meaningless. Different people will have
>different interpretations of what is reasonable. It also means that
>one moderator needs to monitor unnm. Whilst I hope a couple of us
>do keep an eye on unnm I don't think that can be mandated. Personally
>I think that unnm is not a good avenue for this anyway. There will be
>far too many people kibitzing on the thread for it to be sensible.

My view is that linking two newsgroups together, especially in the charter
(which can only be changed by RFD) is troublesome. Should this be agreed,
and then uk.net.news.moderation be removed later, due to lack of use, it
would require a charter change for uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the same
time. For me personally, I believe any mention of uk.net.news.moderation
should be removed from the proposed charter changes.

>> f) An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the
>> group's charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the
>> group. These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be
>> banned from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must
>> immediately inform the offender by email outlining the reason for this
>> action and its duration; the reason will also be posted in the newsgroup
>> uk.net.news.moderation.
>
>A 'fixed stated period'. So 100 years is OK?

Again, my personal view - yes. I think banning someone from posting to a
newsgroup is the strongest action the moderators can take, and in my view,
the process should be clearly documented (as I said many times over the
last 2 years). If that process is 'we can ban you for ever without appeal'
or a 200 page document on the banning process doesn't interest me, but I
believe it should be clear and transparent, and if possible, voted on by
the users of the group, not left to 'any and all means necessary' type
clauses.

So, if the RFD said 'the moderators can ban you for 100 years at the drop
of a hat or because you smell funny' and 80 people voted yes, I'd be happy.

Presently, there is no mention, at all, of banning in either the official
charter, or the moderation policy document hosted here,
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/urcm/

I wrote a comparison of the banning policy statements in moderated uk
newsgroups some time back, and while it's true there aren't many groups,
and they do all deal with bans differently, at least some of them do
mention the process.

uk.religion.christian.moderated
"In the following cases only, the moderator may impose a total ban of
unspecified duration:
* following persistent violations even after the implementation of (2)
above,
* in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,
* if a poster forges newsgroup headers or gives a fake id.

In all cases except the last the moderator must send a notice outlining the
reason for this action to the offender, and to the newsgroup for comment by
other subscribers. "

uk.legal.moderated
"f) The moderators may at their discretion ban contributors who try to
disrupt the group by wasting the moderators time. The moderators should
confirm the decision of any one moderator by a majority of all moderators
within 72 hours and should attempt to inform such contributors of their
action. "

etc.

I was attacked last time I suggested documenting the banning process by
people who 'hate red tape', so I'll repeat again, I don't care *what* the
process is, I would just like it to be written down so people are aware of
it. Having it voted on (i.e. in the charter) would be a bonus, but it's
not in the uk.legal.moderated charter (it's in the separate moderation
policy) so that would be fine by me as well, since there's precedent.

>Once the email does get to the moderators we do not take in to
>account the emailers domain when making any decision.

Uninterested bystander comment: Mailing users at chiark is the most painful
e-mail experience I've ever had. My first mail to the moderator mailing
list from Control was rejected (some time back, it's been fixed) because it
was signed. It takes about 4 hours for one mail to get to chiark from my
own mail server, due to the greylisting process. It is, without doubt, the
most militant unfriendly mail service in existence. The hassle you get
about it is due entirely to the decision to host the moderation interface
on chiark, and much of that hassle is justified.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:39:58 <5tsf38hh4plqb0vuj...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>
>
>>I am a cyclist - I am very keen and knowledgeable on some cycling matters, and
>>I think that I have much to contribute to the moderated group.
>
>describe your bicycle

Two wheels, seat, frame, chain.

Fucking dumb question.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:58:27 <k190uj$gv2$1...@news.albasani.net>
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com

Ummm, do you own a bicycle or not?

I like your argument but don't see why I or anyone else should agree
with it.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:46:07 <fn0g38171okt4ksun...@4ax.com>
uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

Have you tried using another account?

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:18:55 <k19231$qhq$3...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:39:58 <5tsf38hh4plqb0vuj...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>>I am a cyclist - I am very keen and knowledgeable on some cycling
>>>matters, and
>>>I think that I have much to contribute to the moderated group.
>>
>>describe your bicycle
>
>Two wheels, seat, frame, chain.
>
>Fucking dumb question.

Fucking dumb reply since the q was not asked of you.

Do you really want to take on a fool's responsibility, Tony?

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Do you really want to take on a fool's responsibility, Tony?

Wm... I have realised that you are completely unable to determine when
someone is involved in a discussion and presenting their own views, and
when someone is actively supporting another person's view. Frankly, and I
seem to recall saying this before, I no longer give a shit what you think.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >However you want to dress it up, Jackson treats Microsoft accounts differently
> >from all others and for no good reason.
> >
> >He has been told about this time and time again.
>
> Have you tried using another account?

All users should be treated equally. Ordinary users should not need to
jump through hoops to post. Chiark is BROKEN and the obstinate fuckwit
refuses to fix it.
Time to move the moderation system to an RFC compliant server.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:

>Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >However you want to dress it up, Jackson treats Microsoft accounts differently
>> >from all others and for no good reason.
>> >
>> >He has been told about this time and time again.
>>
>> Have you tried using another account?
>
>All users should be treated equally. Ordinary users should not need to
>jump through hoops to post.

Let's be clear. Ordinary users can post, because posting doesn't trigger
the chiark mail server behaviour.

The mail server behaves in an extremely irritating manner, I can't comment
on whether it's compliant or not. However, it's not posting to the group
which is impacted.

Notifications of rejected messages, or accepted messages, yes, if you're
using a mail server that blocks chiark due to anti-social behaviour from
chiark, then you won't get notifications.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >It should not be necessary for users to jump through non-standard
> >hoops to post or to contact the moderators. The system is broken,
> >the person responsible obstinately refuses to fix it. Time to
> >admit that the system is broken and move to a properly
> >configured and maintained server.
>
> Ummm, do you own a bicycle or not?

Several.

> I like your argument but don't see why I or anyone else should agree
> with it.

Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:58:27 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com put finger
to keyboard and typed:

>Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> > Thats a whoosh then.
>> >
>> > Please read the question.
>> > How does a new user who happens to have a microsoft address [1] know that they
>> > have been arbitrarily banned before they have even posted their first
>> > message.
>>
>> I just want to point out that no domain is banned from posting
>> articles to urcm. This is an easy fact to establish - it is a matter
>> of public record that urcm has had accepted articles from microsoft
>> domains (namely hotmail).
>
>You deleted my footnote which mentioned domains other than microsoft.
>As a prime example the system dropped my postings silently on the
>floor without even bothering to issue an RFC compliant reject.
>On investigation it was found that chiark drops mail from any server
>where the reverse and forward DNS do not match. The fuckwit responsible
>claims that this is a feature not a bug. He would not recognise an RFC
>compliant server if it bit him on the arse, There is NO REQUIREMENT
>in the RFC that forward and reverse DNS should match and indeed a
>mismatch is inevitable where, for example, a mail server is part
>of a load sharing or failover cluster.

I wasn't aware that chiark can't cope with mail from servers where the
forward and reverse DNS don't match, but yes, if that is indeed the case
then it's sheer RFC-ignorant incompetance at levels worthy of Dr Cummins
himself.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:55:42 <k1949u$gv2$3...@news.albasani.net>
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com

You were on my list of sensible people before. What went wrong?

The unmoderated group is extant, so why don't you post there?

Why do you and other people want to have your say in a moderated group
when they don't want you?

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:23:39
<sn2h38hqa837goeg6...@news.markshouse.net>
uk.net.news.config Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

>I wasn't aware that chiark can't cope with mail from servers where the
>forward and reverse DNS don't match, but yes, if that is indeed the case
>then it's sheer RFC-ignorant incompetance at levels worthy of Dr Cummins
>himself.

QI latest has a cat with a lot of qualifications.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wwrgt/QI_Series_H_Hypnosis_Halluc
inations_and_Hysteria/

It also touches on religious stuff that probably disgusts Mark's
sensibilities.

[Wm...]

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:45:27 <k193mn$gv2$2...@news.albasani.net>
uk.net.news.config c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com

I presume you know that Putty lives on chiark too?

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 00:36:38 <k19349$sfp$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Do you really want to take on a fool's responsibility, Tony?
>
>Wm... I have realised that you are completely unable to determine when
>someone is involved in a discussion and presenting their own views, and
>when someone is actively supporting another person's view.

If you thought you were able to do that you were mistaken.

> Frankly, and I
>seem to recall saying this before, I no longer give a shit what you think.

We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.

It doesn't matter if you shit on me, it is the other people you need to
be concerned about.

[kat]

I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of his
constituents care about urcm?

--
kat

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.

You are a deluded fool, at best, and an intentional troll at worst.

[Brighton]

On 25/08/2012 00:16, Tony wrote:

> My view is that linking two newsgroups together, especially in the charter
> (which can only be changed by RFD) is troublesome. Should this be agreed,
> and then uk.net.news.moderation be removed later, due to lack of use, it
> would require a charter change for uk.rec.cycling.moderated at the same
> time. For me personally, I believe any mention of uk.net.news.moderation
> should be removed from the proposed charter changes.

One of the problems which a number of people claim to have experienced
is the refusal of moderators to discuss or even explain their actions,
either via email or in a public forum. People claim that they have been
directed by the moderators to raise a matter in unnm, only for the
matter to then be ignored. That was the reason for the paragraph, to
try and "encourage" the mods to do something as it has been claimed that
they seem unwilling to take such points on board. I was thinking that
if specific criteria are set in the charter, then it becomes much easier
if necessary in the future, to say that the moderators are not following
the charter and hence a motion of no confidence would be appropriate.
Whereas moderators from other groups seem more than willing to discuss
relevant issues, there is a suggestion that URCM mods need some formal
encouragement. Would something like “The moderators of URCM will define
a suitable public forum where discussions regarding moderation issues
will be addressed.” Again this will not be introducing anything new, it
will be formalising what they do or are supposed to do already.

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:57:17 <a9rls1...@mid.individual.net>
uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>

>I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of
>his constituents care about urcm?

We all get to vote.

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:10:24 <k1a88h$a3t$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.
>
>You are a deluded fool, at best, and an intentional troll at worst.

Is that the best you can manage? Tut tut

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:57:17 <a9rls1...@mid.individual.net>
>uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>
>>I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of
>>his constituents care about urcm?
>
>
>We all get to vote.

On what? In what way do you feel my behaviour may impact a vote?

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:10:24 <k1a88h$a3t$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
>uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>
>>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.
>>
>>You are a deluded fool, at best, and an intentional troll at worst.
>
>Is that the best you can manage? Tut tut

I'm not point scoring, I'm describing my opinion.

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:54:35 <k1alcs$vto$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:57:17 <a9rls1...@mid.individual.net>
>>uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>>
>>>I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of
>>>his constituents care about urcm?
>>
>>
>>We all get to vote.
>
>On what? In what way do you feel my behaviour may impact a vote?

You, as control, have expressed your opinion.

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:54:53 <k1alde$vto$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>

uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:10:24 <k1a88h$a3t$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
>>uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>>
>>>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.
>>>
>>>You are a deluded fool, at best, and an intentional troll at worst.
>>
>>Is that the best you can manage? Tut tut
>
>I'm not point scoring, I'm describing my opinion.

We are aware of that.

My concern is that you may affect other people's votes when we get to
make them.

You are a responsible person, Tony.

Please assume responsibility.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:54:35 <k1alcs$vto$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
>uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
>
>>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:57:17 <a9rls1...@mid.individual.net>
>>>uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>>>I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of
>>>>his constituents care about urcm?
>>>
>>>
>>>We all get to vote.
>>
>>On what? In what way do you feel my behaviour may impact a vote?
>
>You, as control, have expressed your opinion.

Sigh.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Please assume responsibility.

Demonstrate that I'm being irresponsible and I'll give you �10.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <slrnk3fvf1...@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton wrote:
>NB: this is a personal response not a response from the "URCM moderators"
>

>> 4) A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.
>
>A single poster.

Two, surely? Unless Nuxx is yet another one of judith's aliases.

[Judith]

On 25 Aug 2012 18:12:15 +0100 (BST), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan

Wonderful - even the moderators don't know how many people they have banned.

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:11:08 <k1atct$d1v$2...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Please assume responsibility.
>
>Demonstrate that I'm being irresponsible and I'll give you �10.

May the GBP10 go to a charitable organisation?

[Alan Braggins]

In article <k191u8$qhq$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>uk.religion.christian.moderated
>* in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,

Abuse directed at the moderator is a banning offense but abuse directed
at other posters isn't? Seems a bit off.

But otherwise it looks like the ukcm policy is along the same sort of
lines as the other groups, and nothing has really changed since the
original group creation RFD (where it was established that no-one
would be banned based on behaviour in other groups, for example).

I don't think many people condone postings using the forged identity
of another poster, for example (which both banned posters did).
Otherwise we're maybe a bit more tolerant than some, but it rather
depends on how likely "may" is, or how serious "serious" is.

Speaking personally, putting something along the lines of the uklm
statement in the ukcm moderation policy seems relatively harmless, but
also pointless - if future moderators abandon the current policy of
concensus, they can abandon it for banning just as much as for other
aspects of moderation.

I don't know who objected to "red tape", but what I would object to
is a list of bannable abuse that is or might be taken as exhaustive
and encourage people to test the boundaries. But if you have some
suggestions, maybe we'll get something constructive out of this.

(I'd also object to the implicit proposal that bans can't be reviewed
before a fixed timespan is up, but that's a separate issue, and probably
just because the proponents haven't thought it through.)

(I'm also slightly curious whose awareness you think might be changed
by a written policy statement. Or is it just a general principle?)

[kat]

On 25/08/2012 14:33, Wm... wrote:
> Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:57:17 <a9rls1...@mid.individual.net>
> uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>
>> I didn't know Tony was a politician, but do you really think many of
>> his constituents care about urcm?
>
>
> We all get to vote.
>

On what, that affects Tony?

kat

[John Briggs]

Rev Dr Cummins, please!
--
John Briggs

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:

>In article <k191u8$qhq$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>>uk.religion.christian.moderated
>>* in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,

>But otherwise it looks like the ukcm policy is along the same sort of
>lines as the other groups

Except none of the users can know that, since it's not documented?

>Speaking personally, putting something along the lines of the uklm
>statement in the ukcm moderation policy seems relatively harmless, but
>also pointless - if future moderators abandon the current policy of
>concensus, they can abandon it for banning just as much as for other
>aspects of moderation.

Well yes, which is why I would prefer something in the charter, which would
at least give legitimate users some teeth to have the moderators changed if
they abandoned the charter. You state 'the current policy of consensus'
but how can it be a policy if it's not written down and transparent, surely
it's just a convention?

>(I'm also slightly curious whose awareness you think might be changed
>by a written policy statement. Or is it just a general principle?)

It's a general principal. The greatest impact you can have of a poster is
to ban them from using the group, I believe the process for doing that
belongs to the users of the group and is then enacted by the moderators. In
fact, I believe the whole moderation policy belongs to the users of the
group, and is then enacted by the moderators, but that's a wider issue.

The fact that banning someone on usenet is essentially futile is an
entirely different debate as well.

My view is still that, given the moderation team believe banning is a
useful tool, there should be a statement about it in the moderation policy
or charter (preferred).

[John Briggs]

On 25/08/2012 11:10, Tony wrote:
> In uk.net.news.config, "Wm..."<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> We will find out which of your constituents you respect in time.
>
> You are a deluded fool, at best, and an intentional troll at worst.

What fools are not deluded, and are there any unintentional trolls?
(just asking...)
--
John Briggs

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:45:11 +0100
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> What fools are not deluded,

The ones who accept they're not too bright, and avoid big thoughts.

> and are there any unintentional trolls?

The ones who innocently ask provocative questions, that trolls ask
while feigning innocence.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> >On investigation it was found that chiark drops mail from any server
> >where the reverse and forward DNS do not match. The fuckwit responsible
> >claims that this is a feature not a bug. He would not recognise an RFC
> >compliant server if it bit him on the arse, There is NO REQUIREMENT
> >in the RFC that forward and reverse DNS should match and indeed a
> >mismatch is inevitable where, for example, a mail server is part
> >of a load sharing or failover cluster.
>

> Well, it might be if you didn't configure them properly.
> If your Forward and reverse DNS records don't match, FIX THE BLOODY
> THING INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING.

Show me the RFC which requires such a match.
Not a requirement and not possible on high reliability clusters.

> Many mailservers require matching reverse DNS, including some
> commercial ones run by ISPs and the like, so if your system isn't set
> up properly, you must be having problems elsewhere as well.

WRONG. No sane RFC compliant server requires reverse DNS matching.

> Why pick out chiark for your venom?

Because it is broken and rejects valid RFC compliant messages from
RFC compliant servers.

> >The only way to resolve the many issues regarding lost messages to
> >the the moderaton system and/or moderators address is to move the
> >system away from chiark and onto a properly managed RFC compliant
> >system where fuckwitjackson cannot screw things up with false
> >positives generated by his bogus anti-spam pet project.
>
> Ah, you are hoping to make the moderation system unworkable due to
> spam volume.

Rubbish - The stupid DNS matching misconfiguration is unlikely to
make any significant improvement in SPAM. Any reduction in volume is more
likely to be caused by false positives. Show me a common case of SPAM which
could not be caught by other valid tests.

> >It should not be necessary for users to jump through non-standard
> >hoops to post or to contact the moderators.
>
> Roughly translates as "my internet is broken and it's all the fault of
> the chiark admin"

My systems are fully RFC compliant, as are the many other similar systems.

> > The system is broken,
> >the person responsible obstinately refuses to fix it. Time to
> >admit that the system is broken and move to a properly
> >configured and maintained server.
> >
> You should indeed.

Please get a clue. A little understanding is a very dangerous thing.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com considered Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:01:11 +0000
> (UTC) the perfect time to write:
>
> Because they wouldn't have been.
> It was only mail FROM the mods TO the user that got blocked, so unless
> their post fell foul of moderation, AND it wasn't immediately obvious
> to them why it might have been moderated, everything would work just
> fine.

Messages blocked due to another stupid Jackson misfeature. Yea right.

> >
> >[1] or an account at any of the many other services blocked by fuckwit
> >Jackson's broken filtering software.
> >
> What other services would those be then?

Covered in another reply. Please get a clue, you are defending the
indefencable..

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:45:33 +0100, Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com considered Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:58:27 +0000

>If your Forward and reverse DNS records don't match, FIX THE BLOODY
>THING INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING.

There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for forward and reverse DNS
to match. In any case, on any server with multiple hostnames it is simply
impossible for more than one pair to do so.

>Many mailservers require matching reverse DNS, including some
>commercial ones run by ISPs and the like, so if your system isn't set
>up properly, you must be having problems elsewhere as well.

That is simply not true. I am not aware of any mail server run by any
organisation of significant size which rejects mail on the basis that the
sending server doesn't have matching forward and reverse DNS. My own mail
server does not have matching forward and reverse DNS; I have *never* had
an email rejected for that reason.

What is more common (and which I suspect you may be getting confused with)
is a requirement that forward and reverse DNS should match for at least one
IP address/hostname pair on a particular box. So if, for example,
mail.example.com has an IP addresss of 192.168.0.99 and a reverse lookup on
92.168.0.99 returns www.example.com then www.example.com should have at
least one A record pointing to 92.168.0.99. That's still a mismatch between
forward and reverse DNS for the mail server itself, but following all the
various lookups will eventually complete the circle. Some sender
authentication methods, such as SenderID and SPF, require this in order to
work, and even without them the lack of such a DNS loop is often a trigger
for various anti-spam systems.

However, all major (and pretty much all minor) mail sending systems are
compliant with this particular configuration. In particular, those
belonging to Hotmail and other Microsoft mail domains are. So if mail from
these domains is being rejected then this cannot be the reason unless the
recipient server is badly configured or broken.

>Why pick out chiark for your venom?

It isn't specifically chiark. Chiark is just a server. The real issue is
SAUCE, the anti-spam software used (and written) by chiark's owner. In its
default configuration SAUCE is not RFC-compliant and generates significant
amounts of backscatter. Even disregarding these issues, it generates a
large number of false positives. In fact, it's own author says that "SAUCE
is not for you if clueless strangers often send you mail that's important
to you."[1] But that is precisely the position that moderators are in -
they are obliged to be contactable by anyone who uses (or wishes to use)
the group, as well as being able to send email to any user or potential
user of the group. Again, to quote the software's author, "SAUCE is
controversial, because it deliberately rejects mail for technical
deficiencies which wouldn't make it undeliverable".[2]

Use of such software on personal mail is entirely acceptable. If anyone is
that paranoid about spam then they're fully entitled to semi-isolate
themselves from the Internet. But it isn't acceptable for someone running a
public service such as a Usenet moderation system. Even though SAUCE isn't
used (or, at least, not used in it's most agressive configuation) on the
moderation queue itself, its use on the moderators' contact address makes
the system essentially unfit for purpose.

In any case, having said that the issue "isn't specifically chiark", there
is one aspect where it is a problem. SAUCE's aggressive and abusive
interactions with other servers has caused it to be blocked by several
other servers. What that means is that, although users of those servers my
be able to post to the newsgroups it hosts without any problems, they will
never receive any notifications of messages that are rejected. Again, that
situation is unacceptable for a system which hosts a moderated newsgroup.

>>The only way to resolve the many issues regarding lost messages to
>>the the moderaton system and/or moderators address is to move the
>>system away from chiark and onto a properly managed RFC compliant
>>system where fuckwitjackson cannot screw things up with false
>>positives generated by his bogus anti-spam pet project.
>
>Ah, you are hoping to make the moderation system unworkable due to
>spam volume.

I run the moderation system for a moderated group. Email spam sent to the
moderation address is absolutely no problem at all, even with minimal
filtering on the front end. Spam to the moderators' contact address is
slightly more of an issue, but nothing that can't be handled by a fairly
basic SpamAssassin setup. It really doesn't need excessively agressive
filtering.

>Glad you've cleared that up.

>>
>>It should not be necessary for users to jump through non-standard
>>hoops to post or to contact the moderators.
>
>Roughly translates as "my internet is broken and it's all the fault of
>the chiark admin"

It's certainly the fault of the chiark admin if people using common,
RFC-compliant mail systems are unable to communicate fully with it.

[1] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/sauce/
[2] ibid.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Alan Braggins]

In article <k1bdit$82m$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config, ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>>But otherwise it looks like the ukcm policy is along the same sort of
>>lines as the other groups
>
>Except none of the users can know that, since it's not documented?

It's hardly a secret, given past discussions, which is why I doubted
anyone's awareness is going to be changed.

>I believe the whole moderation policy belongs to the users of the
>group, and is then enacted by the moderators, but that's a wider issue.

Quite. But not every outsider attempting to impose on the users is
just a shit-stirring trouble maker, at least not full time.

And it would be futile to try and restrict discussion to users - making
a few posts just to count would be simple, and lurkers should be able to
contribute too. Restricting input to regulars or long term posters would
be counter-productive. I think everyone accepts that Usenet is in decline,
but not everyone left actively encourages it.

[Judith]

On 25 Aug 2012 21:02:33 +0100 (BST), ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan

Braggins) wrote:


>I don't think many people condone postings using the forged identity
>of another poster, for example (which both banned posters did).

Sorry - you appear to be claiming that I was banned because I forged the
identity of another poster?

If so - I look forward to your further explanation as I was not aware of this,
and it is the first time that this has ever been raised.

Over to you.

[Judith]

On 24 Aug 2012 16:39:54 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In article <slrnk3f7g...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
>>>or ask Control to pass your message on
>>
>>Or, don't. Thanks. Control isn't interested in personal disputes about
>>e-mail delivery.
>
>Sorry.
>
>I thought that if someone genuinely couldn't reach the moderators
>because of an unintentional email misconfiguration at the moderators'
>end, you would be happy to pass the message on so that the problem
>could be fixed.
>
>If you're not willing to help in that way, that's fine. Sorry for
>assuming.


Surely the answer would be for you to make your email system acceptable so that
everyone is treated in exactly the same way.

[Judith]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:47:39 +0100, "Wm..."
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

<snip>


>OK, let us do the obvious and say explicitly that people that use
>hotmail addressees are not welcome.
>


Would you like that to be for all uk.* moderated groups?

[Judith]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 03:45:33 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

<snip tripe>


Oh dear - I though that you were seeking help for the drink problem.

Get off to bed, and sober up.

[Judith]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:11:05 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> So if mail from
>these domains is being rejected then this cannot be the reason unless the
>recipient server is badly configured or broken.

Eeeerm - I wonder.....

>But it isn't acceptable for someone running a
>public service such as a Usenet moderation system.

Exactly

>on the
>moderation queue itself, its use on the moderators' contact address makes
>the system essentially unfit for purpose.

>Mark

Very well said.

[Judith]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:46:21 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) considered 25 Aug 2012

>21:02:33 +0100 (BST) the perfect time to write:
>
>>In article <k191u8$qhq$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony wrote:
>>>uk.religion.christian.moderated
>>>* in the event of serious abuse directed against the moderator,
>>
>>Abuse directed at the moderator is a banning offense but abuse directed
>>at other posters isn't? Seems a bit off.
>

>Why?
>Abuse directed at anyone else should (and hopefully will) be moderated
>out.
>The moderators have no choice - they have to wade through it all.



Why not try your little gem in the moderated group - see if they find it
acceptable:


===========================================================
If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
===========================================================

[Wm...]

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:14:34 <a9sq1h...@mid.individual.net>
uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>

if your point is that control isn't a position that gets voted for your
point is in turn redundant.

[Wm...]

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:45:11 <uke_r.19278$iR2....@fx26.am4>
uk.net.news.config John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com>

We ought to be concerned about the unintentional ones and the
non-delusional fools can be dangerous.

[Wm...]

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 02:06:00 <20120826020600.25e05127@hyperion>
uk.net.news.config Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>

I think that is a bit too harsh, Rob.

There are some innocent fools about, after all.