Is misc.rural moderated?
Reality
Years ago it was NOT moderated, now someone claims to be a moderator of
misc.rural.
One post of mine with an on topic Subject and two web site page links
relevant to the topic brought a charge of Spamming against me that my
ISP is taking on its face without acknowledging that there isn't even a
thread of evidence of any spamming. Good relevant links save NG space
and increase the value of the web.
2.1) What is Spam?
The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "the same article (or
essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of
times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't
mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose
content I object to." Spam is a funky name for a phenomenon that can be
measured pretty objectively: did that post appear X times? (See 3.1,
"Yeah, but how many is X?')
There have been "customized" spams where each post made some effort to
apply to each individual newsgroup, but the general thrust of each
article was the same. A huge straw poll on news.admin.policy,
news.admin.misc, and alt.current-events.net-abuse (December 1994) showed
that as many of 90% of the readers felt that cancellations for these
posts were justified. So, simply put: if you plan to "post the same or
extremely similar messages to 'dozens' of newsgroups," the posts are
probably going to get canceled.
If you feel that a massive multi-post you are planning constitutes an
exception, you are more than welcome to run the idea past the readers of
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet for feedback first.
(The above is what constitutes spam - I did none of those things, I was
charged with spamming after my first post in many weeks, -- a single
post to a single NG, -- SPAM! That is an absolute Impossibility!)
(Please recognize these facts.)
2.2) What is Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP)?
Some people feel that "spam" is an inappropriately misleading name for
messages of this type. Others feel that "EMP" is misleading. Since spam
is the most widely recognized term, that's what we use in this FAQ.
2.3) What about cross-posting?
Here's the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting:
cross-posting is where you list all the groups on the Newsgroups: line
of a single post. Multi-posting is where you have some idiotic program
fire an individual copy of the post to each group. (If you do it
manually, that's even more idiotic.) A cross-post only takes up the
space of 1 post (one on every newsserver in the world), no matter how
many groups; multi-posting takes up the space of dozens or hundreds of
posts (on every newsserver in the world), which is why it infuriates so
many people. (MULTI-POSTING IS SPAMMING. 'DU')
So, cross-posting is better than multi-posting. It's still very often a
bad idea, and if you get carried away (over 5 cross-posts) it'll (the
post) will get canceled (solely on the NGs) Many allow 5 cross posts,
but none is better.
I used NO cross posts to misc.rural, and certainly NO multi-posts, that
would hint of spamming the NG.
This is a simple and easy way for ISP's to allow or work with anyone who
is willing to file an abuse against anyone posting in an open NG.
Flaming and harassment are against the rules. I am a victim of false
charges and gross harassment.
Topic was: What's the beef? On misc.rural. It is the second thread of a
too long initial What's the Beef?.
I'm not hiding behind anonymous, they all know who I am and how to abuse
me by fling immaterial complaints.
Read the threads and tell me how in the world anyone could stretch that
in to spamming misc.rural.
Russ Allbery
> Is misc.rural moderated?
No.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
BarB
>Is misc.rural moderated?
>
>Years ago it was NOT moderated, now someone claims to be a moderator of
>misc.rural.
It is not moderated.
To check on the status of a group use
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/active
A moderated group is flagged with an "m", an unmoderated group with a "y".
misc.rural 0000000000 0000000001 y
One can also look at the headers of any message to the group. A moderated
group will have a line showing the message was approved by the moderator.
In NNQ it looks like this:
Approved: nnq-...@presby.edu
BarB
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Is misc.rural moderated?
>
As already indicated no the group is not moderated, if it was you post
would not appear in the group.
>
> Read the threads and tell me how in the world anyone could stretch that
> in to spamming misc.rural.
Looking at one thread it appears you posting about "beef genetics" is
not welcomed and occurs often enough that other regs of the group are
tried of seeing you post about it. advanced group search indicates the
address you use (and most likely used by others) posta over 20 times a
day in the last month. However only three post to misc.rural in the same
time period. It may be the topic is just seen two often, that you are
believed to be another, or they are just tried of the topic and.or URL.
Span certainly has been defined and acepted by news admins to a certain
standard that I do not see you exceeding. However users often define
span differently thaen news admins. In one group I was accused of
spaming because of my sig. file. Not correct however a user certainly
believed it.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Big D
>Reality wrote:
>
>
>>Is misc.rural moderated?
>>
>>
>>
>
>As already indicated no the group is not moderated, if it was you post
>would not appear in the group.
>
That's what I told my ISP, but they are ready to cut my service and
perhaps my telephone service too, without investigating the groundless
claim of spamming. I have been paying my ISP and phone which is the same
for years and now they take a none paying person's false charge and
ignore the NG's standards and the false claim of being a moderator of a
non moderated NG.
>
>
>
>>Read the threads and tell me how in the world anyone could stretch that
>>in to spamming misc.rural.
>>
>>
>
>Looking at one thread it appears you posting about "beef genetics" is
>not welcomed and occurs often enough that other regs of the group are
>tried of seeing you post about it.
>
I keep a check on that NG and there is rarely a topic on beef genetics
on it. I do very very minimal posting to misc.rural. Weeks went by since
my last post, and many months have go by between my posts on other
topics, not beef genetics. No, there was no reason for that but Jan has
another breed of beef and didn't want me talking about how the Angus
breed uses EPDs and other tools as advance tech for genetic improvement.
>advanced group search indicates the
>address you use (and most likely used by others) posta over 20 times a
>day in the last month. However only three post to misc.rural in the same
>time period.
>
Well, I'm going to quit using the anonymous e-mail address as many use
it, I have not been a frequent poster to any NG.
>It may be the topic is just seen two often, that you are
>believed to be another, or they are just tried of the topic and.or URL.
>
Nether one of those and of course that has nothing to do with a charge
of spamming misc.rural. Relevant links to web pages save NG space and
facilitate gleaning of important information. I like good links, if it
is not relevant or interesting I don't click on them
>Span certainly has been defined and accepted by news admins to a certain
>standard that I do not see you exceeding.
>
This is my ISP accepting someone posing as a moderator of misc.rural and
not paying any attention to the reality that there is NO violation of
any spamming standard that exists for NGs.
>However users often define span differently than news admins. In one group I was accused of
>Spamming because of my sig. file. Not correct however a user certainly
>believed it.
>
>
Users have no business being spam cops when they don't know what the
accepted NG Spam Standards are, --right.
There have a real good way to stop anyone from having access to publish
on even non moderated NGs. It could be called pre censorship of anything
you would have wanted to post in the future.
Thank you for your good response.
Russ Allbery
> ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
>> As already indicated no the group is not moderated, if it was you post
>> would not appear in the group.
> That's what I told my ISP, but they are ready to cut my service and
> perhaps my telephone service too, without investigating the groundless
> claim of spamming.
Whether or not the group is moderated has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether you are or are not violating the acceptable use policy of your ISP
with your postings. The two questions have nothing to do with each other.
Unmoderated is not equivalent to "anyone can post anything they want and
we'll ignore any complaints" at many ISPs.
I have no idea whether you are violating any policies at your ISP or not,
and honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research
to find out. But the moderation status of the group is a red herring.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
Sorry about the off topic review that I had posted of the poster. Alas I
will add to it some.
>
> Whether or not the group is moderated has nothing whatsoever to do with
> whether you are or are not violating the acceptable use policy of your ISP
> with your postings. The two questions have nothing to do with each other.
The AUP, if I read the headers correctly is at
http://www.tdstelecom.com/tdsnet/prod_internet_acceptable_inc.asp
>
> Unmoderated is not equivalent to "anyone can post anything they want and
> we'll ignore any complaints" at many ISPs.
This indeed is true, though it does appear some NSP/ISPs killfile
complainers as oposed to looking onto and fixing a precieved problem.
>
> I have no idea whether you are violating any policies at your ISP or not,
> and honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research
> to find out. But the moderation status of the group is a red herring.
>
A look at the AUP it appears posible that any post that contains a
commercial link would be considered spam also "to directly or indirectly
contact any other user (including users of another Internet service) in
an unwanted fashion." would be considered a violation.
I strongely advise that the user find another provider considering the
AUP that I am reading. The way it reads to me if anyone complains
service can be terminated *shrugs*
wildstar
>
> A look at the AUP it appears posible that any post that contains a
> commercial link would be considered spam also "to directly or
> indirectly contact any other user (including users of another Internet
> service) in an unwanted fashion." would be considered a violation.
>
> I strongely advise that the user find another provider considering the
> AUP that I am reading. The way it reads to me if anyone complains
> service can be terminated *shrugs*
>
>
The claim may have been stated to his ISP and they took the claim as the
following:
"4. Fraud/False Advertising - You agree not to post or transmit
fraudulent information on or through the Service. This can include false
advertising, identity piracy, or misrepresentation of any kind."
Using that generic account name may have been interpreted as
"misrepresentation of any kind".
Whomever it may concern, contact your ISP and clarify it immediately. The
claim was not made by you under fraud and show them the appropriate use
policy of USENET. They will not close my service if I am particular -
using USENET within the acceptable standards. Their policy covers email
and using the ISP/Email service (quite often part of the service package)
and webspace (if used). If you explain to your ISP what exactly it is
about then they will likely dismiss it as a mistake. It all depends on
how the complaint was issued to them.
Big D
>ba...@dmcom.net wrote in news:3EC7FF...@dmcom.net:
>
>
>
>>A look at the AUP it appears possible that any post that contains a
>>commercial link would be considered spam also "to directly or
>>indirectly contact any other user (including users of another Internet
>>service) in an unwanted fashion." would be considered a violation.
>>
I agree as stated below that I need to find another ISP. This will also
cause me to lose one of my Web sites I have with them. On the other hand
how could the AUP be that one-sided. It permits their abuse team to view
a non offending post in any possible category and ignore that evidence,
and and even allow someone claiming to be a moderator of a non moderated
NG forum to summarily tag a person as a spammer. Additionally, though
the link to the cattle breeders page primarily shows the production
records and quality of his Angus cattle, they are never priced or sold
through the Internet, as is the case with the mutton link as part of the
posters signature.
There was no direct citing of a complaint about a commercial link
problem. When a link clearly shows what the content will be all the NG
visitors need to do is not click it. Like a library only pick and open
the books you are interested, don't demand that all the books in any
library should conform to your narrow interest spectrum!
He and others are constant ongoing posters to misc.rural. I very rarely
ever post to it, and very infrequently to other NGs. The only complaint
that was filed was a ridiculous on its face, spamming abuse charge, with
absolutely no evidence anywhere in existence, that I have every done any
violations. Jan has beef cattle of another breed so therefore
notwithstanding the relevancy or information value of the post or
anything else, I'm plunked. A link of any kind that discusses other
beef cattle genetic improvement programs is labeled by her as spam.
Several weeks ago the same flaming by her happened, therefore one along
with a couple friends are permitted to completely control what is on,--
a non moderated NG. Im an old timer on the Internet and in NGs, this
beats anything I have ever seen.
>>
>>I strongly advise that the user find another provider considering the
>>AUP that I am reading. The way it reads to me if anyone complains
>>service can be terminated *shrugs*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>The claim may have been stated to his ISP and they took the claim as the
>following:
>
>"4. Fraud/False Advertising - You agree not to post or transmit
>fraudulent information on or through the Service. This can include false
>advertising, identity piracy, or misrepresentation of any kind."
>
>Using that generic account name may have been interpreted as
>"misrepresentation of any kind".
>
Well, the accused ought to be presented with all the particulars of any
claim being presented against them. The only claim I saw was spamming,
which by all standards of NG spamming is totally out of any question
whatever.
>Whomever it may concern, contact your ISP and clarify it immediately. The
>claim was not made by you under fraud and show them the appropriate use
>policy of USENET. They will not close my service if I am particular -
>using USENET within the acceptable standards. Their policy covers email
>and using the ISP/Email service (quite often part of the service package)
>and web space (if used). If you explain to your ISP what exactly it is
>about then they will likely dismiss it as a mistake. It all depends on
>how the complaint was issued to them.
>
>
I believe I did a thorough job of showing the NG spam standards, etc.
However, my ISP abuse team is taking the charge on its face and totally
ignoring anything I show including the post that ought easily convince
them that there have never been any violations of span or cross posting
or anything else. They are giving me an automated response and are only
listening to the complainant. I would like to have them play fair but if
I e-mail them, call them or bother them further they may simply plunk
me. So, maybe I need to look for other alternatives, asap. They have
made the threat . I'm going to have the states public radio network do a
talk show on these issues and will let yo know when it schedules.
It Wis. Public Radio's Ideas Network after 6 AM to around 6 PM You can
call their number 880-642-1234 and talk statewide and on the Internet live.
<A HREF="http://www.wpr.org/"> Search around for the live link to listen
over the Net. I hope I didn't spam or violate a major rule with the
link? E-mail Joy Cardin if you want talk programs about these critical
issues on the airwaves.
wildstar
<<< Snip >>>
> It Wis. Public Radio's Ideas Network after 6 AM to around 6 PM You can
> call their number 880-642-1234 and talk statewide and on the Internet
> live. <A HREF="http://www.wpr.org/"> Search around for the live link
> to listen over the Net. I hope I didn't spam or violate a major rule
> with the link? E-mail Joy Cardin if you want talk programs about these
> critical issues on the airwaves.
>
I think we'll stand by with this one. (Just try not to post links in this
newsgroups, it would be safer for you)
You might also want to make a post to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet about
this.
Just talk with the team and get a person. For me, I am lucky. I'll talk
to the office in town and then they can give me all the info.
Anyway, you are not at fault from my understanding. As you said, those
are false claims from a person claiming to be a moderator in a
unmoderated newsgroup. For verification, have them contact Russ Albery.
The head of the newsgroup admins.
Traditionally, in the BBS days, these acusers would be kicked off as they
are attempting to make claims for the purpose of starting a flame war, so
on and so on.
It is illegal for an ISP company to discontinue service for a false
violation. You need to notify to them that and put some fire under their
feet. Get them to *listen*. Lawsuit is something that will get their
attention. Are you in violation using an anonymous name in a newsgroup.
No. I would be in clear violation using my Wildstar handle. This is not a
violation of there policy nor am I spamming, or advertising. Though this
is for keeping my private information secure while I am on a Newsgroup.
People can get to know me and I happen to put some info from time to
time. It depends. Why do every jack and joe in the world need to know my
real name.
Big D
wildstar wrote:
>Big D <udar...@chorus.nett> wrote in news:3EC84022...@chorus.nett:
><<< Snip >>>
>
>
>>It Wis. Public Radio's Ideas Network after 6 AM to around 6 PM You can
>>call their number-
>>
800-642-1234 and talk live statewide and worldwide on the Internet.
Non commercial public BR talk forums
>
>You might also want to make a post to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet about
>this.
>
>Just talk with the team and get a person. For me, I am lucky. I'll talk
>to the office in town and then they can give me all the info.
>
>Anyway, you are not at fault from my understanding. As you said, those
>are false claims from a person claiming to be a moderator in a
>unmoderated newsgroup. For verification, have them contact Russ Albery.
>The head of the newsgroup admins.
>
>Traditionally, in the BBS days, these accusers would be kicked off as they
>are attempting to make claims for the purpose of starting a flame war, so
>on and so on.
>
>It is illegal for an ISP company to discontinue service for a false
>violation. You need to notify to them that and put some fire under their
>feet. Get them to *listen*. Lawsuit is something that will get their
>attention. Are you in violation using an anonymous name in a newsgroup.
>No. I would be in clear violation using my Wildstar handle. This is not a
>violation of there policy nor am I spamming, or advertising. Though this
>is for keeping my private information secure while I am on a Newsgroup.
>People can get to know me and I happen to put some info from time to
>time. It depends. Why do every jack and joe in the world need to know my
>real name.
>
>
Below is the last reply of tds
Sniped name,
As long as we do not receive any more complaints, we have no reason to act. Spam by definition is subjective. What one person consider Spam or unsolicited, another maybe welcome the posting. However, spamming is not just limited to e-mail.
If the mail/postings generates complaints, it may cause our news server to placed on a blacklist. TDS does and will continue take such complaints seriously. According to our records this your first complaint. Please treat this as an FYI.
Robert Heaney
Abuse Response Team
608-663-4363
ab...@tds.net
Thank you,
TDS Internet Services Abuse Response Team
TDS Telecom
ab...@tds.net
===========
First paragraph second sentence to the end: If TDS Telecom states,
--there is no standard to determine who is or is not spamming it is all
simply subjective (WOW), then all anyone or group need do is file their
immaterial subjective complaints and bingo, the innocent victim is plunked!
Quote: "What one person consider Spam or unsolicited, another maybe
welcome the posting."
Spam or unsolicited: There is NO prerequisite requiring Posts or Links
to be solicited. Unsolicited e-mail from strangers trying to directly
sell something is an entirely different matter requiring different
standards.
Therefore, TDS Telecom apparently has NO legal compunction to adhere to
any standards whatever. All anyone has to do is file another complaint
and zip I no longer have an ISP. Their wording allows them to do
anything they want to and the hell with whether you were innocent of
violating any standard because the only standard is complaints.
I am having trouble believing anything could possibly be this ridiculous
when it comes to TDS Telecom treating its own long time paying customers
in such a manner that can so easily be blatantly discriminatory. TDS
customers have no way to defend themselves against wholly arbitrary
tyranny that can easily bar them from an open public forum that also
incorporates civic political discussions.
It appears there could there be some violations of constitutional and
fundamental rights, in this equation?
Well, it is all subjective, huh! Big D
Devin L. Ganger
> I have no idea whether you are violating any policies at your ISP or not,
> and honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research
> to find out. But the moderation status of the group is a red herring.
an unmoderated group, that's either a lack of clue or lack of truth that
casts the rest of their claims into a certain amount of doubt.
--
Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org>
"Aikido is based around the central precept of letting an attack take its
natural course. You, of course, don't want to impede that natural flow
by being in its way." -- overheard on the PyraMOO
Russ Allbery
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 14:25:55 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I have no idea whether you are violating any policies at your ISP or not,
>> and honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research
>> to find out. But the moderation status of the group is a red herring.
> Well, not necessarily. If the complainer is claiming to be a moderator for
> an unmoderated group, that's either a lack of clue or lack of truth that
> casts the rest of their claims into a certain amount of doubt.
Thankfully it's rarely necessary to rely on the truthfulness, or even the
sanity, of someone making complaints about Usenet, since all of the
relevant information on which to make most abuse decisions is public.
Charles
Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
> Well, not necessarily. If the complainer is claiming to be a moderator for
> an unmoderated group, that's either a lack of clue or lack of truth that
> casts the rest of their claims into a certain amount of doubt.
Has anyone checked the claim that the complainer claimed to be a
moderator?
--
Charles
just me
"Russ Allbery" <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:ylr86uz...@windlord.stanford.edu...
> Thankfully it's rarely necessary to rely on the truthfulness, or even the
> sanity, of someone making complaints about Usenet, since all of the
> relevant information on which to make most abuse decisions is public.
It is unfortunate, however, that not all ISP's take the time to investigate
complaints about usenet violations. I have known of them to simply react,
and always against the subject of the complaint, not the complainant.
-Aula
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/03
Big D
TDS stated in their reply to me that it was one of the moderators that
filed the complaint.
================
Sniped - name only,
While newsgroups and other public forums (chat, discussion boards, etc.) do not have mail lists per say, they still can be "spammed" however. Newsgroup are actually more vulnerable in a sense, since anyone can access and find them. Just because a public forum is open, does not mean it allows unsolicited or off topic postings.
*** The complaint came from one of the moderators of the newsgroup. *** It is very important to read all the conduct policy information for each newsgroup. If you have questions about it's policy, you may want to ask of the newsgroup moderator. Not only is it a violation of newsgroups Polices, but also violates our acceptable use policies (AUP).
Please see them here:
http://www.tdstelecom.com/tdsnet/prod_internet_acceptable_inc.asp
This is your first infraction and please takes this an FYI. However, if we do receive further complaints, we may terminate your internet service.
Thank you,
TDS Internet Services Abuse Response Team
TDS Telecom
ab...@tds.net
From: Reality <anon...@anonymous.com>
Date: 2003/05/15 Thu PM 11:58:37 CDT
To: ab...@tds.net
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Where's the BEEF]
Darrell,
While newsgroups and other public forums (chat, discussion boards, etc) do not have mail lists per say, they still can be "spammed" however. Newsgroup are actually more vulnerable in a sense, since anyone can access and find them. Just because a public forum is open, does not mean it allows unsolicited or off topic postings.
The complaint came from one of the moderators of the newsgroup. It is very important to read all the conduct policy information for each newsgroup. If you have questions about it's policy, you may want to ask of the newsgroup moderator. Not only is it a violation of newsgroups Polices, but also violates our acceptable use policies (AUP).
Please see them here:
http://www.tdstelecom.com/tdsnet/prod_internet_acceptable_inc.asp
This is your first infraction and please takes this an FYI. However, if we do receive further complaints, we may terminate your internet service.
Thank you,
TDS Internet Services Abuse Response Team
TDS Telecom
ab...@tds.net
From: Reality <anon...@anonymous.com>
Date: 2003/05/15 Thu PM 11:58:37 CDT
To: ab...@tds.net
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Where's the BEEF]
=================================
There were two threads of "Where's the beef?," my post was the start of
the second thread -- referring back to the initial thread.
They were discussing the quality and taste of beef. So, the "Editorial
link":
http://www.udarrell.com/angusbeefcattletalk.html (For your reference
only)
Charles
wrote:
> TDS stated in their reply to me that it was one of the moderators that
> filed the complaint.
It is more likely your ISP is claiming they recieved the compliant from
a moderator than the actual complainer said they were a moderator. I
say that because from the looks of what you posted, your ISP sent you a
"canned" response. You probably should get a new ISP.
--
Charles
Big D
>In article <3EC98BF3...@chorus.nett>, Big D <udar...@chorus.nett>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>TDS stated in their reply to me that it was one of the moderators that
>>filed the complaint.
>>
>>
>
>It is more likely your ISP is claiming they received the compliant from
>a moderator than the actual complainer said they were a moderator. I
>say that because from the looks of what you posted, your ISP sent you a
>"canned" response. You probably should get a new ISP.
>
>
You said what I've been thinking, they continually try to justify and
make more valid the complaint.
Canned to dump a paying customer. They may have a variety of canned
responses to pick from.
Read Hugh Watkins post on: news.group.questions at 11:23 AM
It is 180 degree turn around from what I have been getting from the TDS
Abuse Team.
Big D
wildstar
news:slrnbciu44...@bofh.thecabal.internal:
> Well, not necessarily. If the complainer is claiming to be a
> moderator for an unmoderated group, that's either a lack of clue or
> lack of truth that casts the rest of their claims into a certain
> amount of doubt.
>
In general, if they claim to be moderator and they are not or there is no
moderator in that given newsgroup then his complaints of violating a rule
(that he imposed) is in general false and should be disregarded.
A user does not have to be a moderator to file a complaint to the ISP of
the user who the complaint is about.
wildstar
news:9Rfya.213601$My6.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> It is unfortunate, however, that not all ISP's take the time to
> investigate complaints about usenet violations. I have known of them
> to simply react, and always against the subject of the complaint, not
> the complainant.
>
Agree, and all the ISPs need to know where the standard FAQ about spamming
under the BIG-8 and those other NGs that is under Russ. So Russ, you might
want to make it known to them where the standard "official" USENET FAQs are
on spamming.
wildstar
news:190520032057257366%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid:
Who was the complainer. Is he the same individual claiming to be moderator
or someone else in the NG. This can make a difference.
Russ Allbery
> Agree, and all the ISPs need to know where the standard FAQ about
> spamming under the BIG-8 and those other NGs that is under Russ.
Er, the only newsgroups "under" me are, arguably, the two that I
personally moderate alone, and even that is rather iffy since they're
there for the users and posters, not for me.
Joe Bernstein
wrote:
> It appears there could there be some violations of constitutional and
> fundamental rights, in this equation?
It may be helpful to you in whatever you're going to do to be aware
that few constitutional rights can be meaningfully violated by a
private company. For example, the right to bear arms is a
constitutional right, but that doesn't obligate a grocery store to
sell me a gun, *nor* does it obligate even a gun store to sell me
a gun. Similarly, if I'm quoted in the newspaper saying that the
Pope is Catholic, my employer has every right to fire me, although
admittedly this would be a very bizarre reason to do so. There are
laws saying, for example, that someone can't be fired for reporting
an illegal act by their employer; these laws exist precisely because
the First Amendment does not apply.
Where I live, TDS has a good reputation for cluefulness; I'm
*extremely* surprised to see them taking this line, and I kind of
wish a TDS employee would show up in this thread to explain it,
since news.admin.net-abuse.usenet tends to be unreadable for me.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/> At this address,
personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome.
wildstar
> wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Agree, and all the ISPs need to know where the standard FAQ about
>> spamming under the BIG-8 and those other NGs that is under Russ.
>
> Er, the only newsgroups "under" me are, arguably, the two that I
> personally moderate alone, and even that is rather iffy since they're
> there for the users and posters, not for me.
>
Being humble when you are the man who replaced Dave C. Lawrence's job.
You are the "CABAL". (Yes, TINC)
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Er, the only newsgroups "under" me are, arguably, the two that I
>> personally moderate alone, and even that is rather iffy since they're
>> there for the users and posters, not for me.
> Being humble when you are the man who replaced Dave C. Lawrence's job.
> You are the "CABAL". (Yes, TINC)
I'm not being humble. I don't think you understand what David Lawrence's
job was.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
As far as I know, Russ and Company have very little power over most
newsgroups once created, especially unmoderated groups. They are
mostly concerned with the creation of new groups, in the Big-8
"administration" context. Once created, the group is out of
their hands and in readers' laps. Well, they could send remove
control messages, but watch how fast admins stop paying attention
to them; besides, a remove would be counterproductive.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Denis McKeon
Or the ISP's *customer* might want to make whatever s/he chooses known
to them, including which parts of their contracts, AUP/ToS, policies,
policy implementation choices, and staff decisions s/he is or is not
happy with. This is Usenet, a cooperative anarchy, not a spanking zoo.
I am continually baffled by how many people seem to have the idea that
Usenet has some sort of single simple controlling entity - call it a
cabal, czar, dictator, executive branch, whatever - especially when even
a few months of observation can demonstrate otherwise.
ISPs can make their own policy, and can choose to rely on whatever basis
they feel is appropriate for their decisions. That they might choose to
rely on charters, CFVs, or newsgroup description lines to resolve
disputes with or complaints about their customers makes sense to me.
That ISPs might rely solely on an FAQ posted by an individual in a group
describing the content of the group makes less sense to me, but in the
absence of anything with more demonstrated consensus, an uncontested or
widely accepted FAQ might be the best available description of the group
content.
For an ISP to accept any charter, CFV, newsgroup description, or FAQ as
applying to many groups does not mean to me that that document has some
sort of overwhelming external authoritative force - it means that the
text describes reality accurately enough for an ISP to choose to rely
on it. The power is in the accuracy and reliance, not in the document,
nor the writer, nor in whatever role the writer has.
To put that another way, given a choice between a document whose writer
claims it is the Standard Official Approved Document on a topic, and
another document which makes no such claims, but which is relied upon by
more than 80% of the audience for such documents, I would tend to rely
on the widely accepted document. In fact, my reaction to documents that
contain claims of authority is to immediately question those claims:
what standard? which office or official? who approved?
TINC - but there are ISPs who make decisions about what groups to carry,
and which control messages to honor. TINC - but there are people who
participate in working groups to develop RFCs. TINC - but there are
people who care about Usenet and volunteer their time to keep it working.
TINC - but there is a community, and it is more complicated than simple.
--
Denis McKeon
Big D
>Big D <udar...@chorus.nett> wrote in news:3EC84022...@chorus.nett:
><<< Snip >>>
>
>
>>It Wis. Public Radio's Ideas Network after 6 AM to around 6 PM You can
>>call their number 800-642-1234 and talk statewide and on the Internet
>>live. <<< snip >>>
>>
>>
><<< snip >>>
>
>You might also want to make a post to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet about
>this.
>
>Anyway, you are not at fault from my understanding. As you said, those
>are false claims from a person claiming to be a moderator in a
>unmoderated newsgroup. For verification, have them contact Russ Albery.
>The head of the newsgroup admins.
>
>Traditionally, in the BBS days, these accusers would be kicked off as they
>are attempting to make claims for the purpose of starting a flame war, so
>on and so on.
>
>It is illegal for an ISP company to discontinue service for a false
>violation. You need to notify to them that and put some fire under their
>feet. Get them to *listen*. Lawsuit is something that will get their
>attention. Are you in violation using an anonymous name in a newsgroup.
>No. I would be in clear violation using my Wildstar handle. This is not a
>violation of there policy nor am I spamming, or advertising. Though this
>is for keeping my private information secure while I am on a Newsgroup.
>People can get to know me and I happen to put some info from time to
>time. It depends. Why do every jack and joe in the world need to know my
>real name.
>
>
Would this signature work for political NG replies?
They usually will go with one link in the signature.
I could use a link to concentrate its relevancy to particular thread's
Subject.
:-)
--
Big D
On Political Solutions and other trivia
http://www.udarrell.com/my_pages2.htm
wildstar
> I'm not being humble. I don't think you understand what David Lawrence's
> job was.
>
Creation and Deletion of Newsgroups and set configuration status of
newsgroup and of course provide the official FAQs.
Simple.
wildstar
news:badqjg$t9l$1...@iruka.swcp.com:
> Or the ISP's *customer* might want to make whatever s/he chooses known
> to them, including which parts of their contracts, AUP/ToS, policies,
> policy implementation choices, and staff decisions s/he is or is not
> happy with. This is Usenet, a cooperative anarchy, not a spanking
> zoo.
<<< Snip >>>
There are FAQs as for the standard used by Net Admins to deal with abuse.
ISPs would use them as reference for actions to be taken when dealing
with complaints and a general policy is that an ISP must receive info if
the NG is a moderated or non-moderated NG and the source of that info is
the keeper of the Charters. Isn't Russ a good source to determine. Yes
the ISP has final decision but only once they have received the info they
need then they should make decisions. They should not take every jack and
joes word for claiming to be moderator especially if the NG is not a
moderated NG.
You guys are the central source since it is Russ's hands in creating the
NGs and he above all else would have the info.
No, Russ doesn't decide what happens to an individual in this case. It
still falls under the ISP. The ISP needs to check on this.
Russ Allbery
>> I'm not being humble. I don't think you understand what David
>> Lawrence's job was.
> Creation and Deletion of Newsgroups
The mechanical portions of it, yeah.
> and set configuration status of newsgroup
Depending on what you mean by this, maybe.
> and of course provide the official FAQs.
No.
Russ Allbery
> There are FAQs as for the standard used by Net Admins to deal with
> abuse.
There are?
News to me.
> ISPs would use them as reference for actions to be taken when dealing
> with complaints and a general policy is that an ISP must receive info if
> the NG is a moderated or non-moderated NG and the source of that info is
> the keeper of the Charters.
There is no official charter repository for Big Eight groups.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>There are FAQs as for the standard used by Net Admins to deal with abuse.
Wouldn't know about those. I just take care of my own little (tiny,
really tiny) kingdom.
>Isn't Russ a good source to determine. Yes
>the ISP has final decision but only once they have received the info they
>need then they should make decisions. They should not take every jack and
>joes word for claiming to be moderator especially if the NG is not a
>moderated NG.
Problem is, to some extent Russ is just another "jack and joe" on
these particular issues. For example, you may have noticed the
checkgroups list postings. Those are a quasi definitive list of
non-bogus newsgroups. Is anyone paying attention to it. Apparently
not. Because that list had been unmaintained for a little while
and ISPs are relying on control messsage archives instead... which
were trashed not too long ago, and made quite a mess of things.
Getting folks to use the list again is going to be a bit of a
struggle. Why can such a situation occur? Because Russ ISN'T
considered the end of the line, he can be bypassed, and sometimes
he is bypassed. (I'm attributing the list to Russ, which is
probably not entirely fair, but put that in a more general context
and you see why the issue is not simple).
>You guys are the central source since it is Russ's hands in creating the
>NGs and he above all else would have the info.
That's only if the ISPs chose that to be so. Creating Big-8
newsgroups based on Russ and company is actually a voluntary action.
If ISPs decided to stop paying attention tomorrow, Russ, this
newsgroup and anything that comes from them becomes irrelevant,
immediately. That's already happening in a significantly less
extreme way: many new groups require lobbying at relatively more
ISPs than in the past. If we have problems getting ISPs to
create the groups we pass here, there's less reason to believe
there is THAT much confidence in Russ and company.
>No, Russ doesn't decide what happens to an individual in this case. It
>still falls under the ISP. The ISP needs to check on this.
Sure. The problem is convincing them their source of info isn't
as good as another source of info. That isn't a sure bet. If
it does happen, it will be because of all the work Russ, Todd
and company are putting into upgrading the Big-8 creation
infrastructure in their ample spare time [sarcasm]. Will it
happen? I like to think so but I also think it will take
time.
wildstar
> The mechanical portions of it, yeah.
>
> Depending on what you mean by this, maybe.
>
> No.
>
Ok, setting status according the policies.
As for the FAQs, you or those who work with you manage the official FAQs.
Lets take a look at one of the newsgroups operated by what many have
called the CABAL, which were nothing more then a series of admins and
where greatly glorified out of proportion into infamousy. A series of
admins existed to administrate NGs (ensuring they are working correctly).
A series of general use policies existed for moderation, how newsgroups
are created and voting policy. You know what I am referring to. There are
also policies of what Excessive Multi-Posting is and all. These admins
were the ones who generally posted these general FAQs. Each NG that is
"moderated" used these guidelines within the discretion of the moderator.
You as an admin is not responsible for how a moderator moderates but set
the guidelines. You are like the writers of the D&D RPG books. They write
the rules. Rule 1, there is no rules but guidelines have question read
Rule 2. Rule 2: DM makes the rules and they are final.
The moderators are the DMs. They read the guidelines and they are
responsible authorities. All you may do in this case, provide info if an
NG is moderated or not and the general FAQs about spamming. A set of
guidelines were made for unmoderated and moderated newsgroups to use as a
standard set of rules and guidelines enforced by the moderator.
An unmoderated NG has no moderators but by default will fall under the
general guidelines.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in
>news:ylel2tb...@windlord.stanford.edu:
>> I'm not being humble. I don't think you understand what David Lawrence's
>> job was.
>>
>Creation and Deletion of Newsgroups
No. He oversees the vetting of proposals for certain newsgroups
and the subsequent interest poll, and then sends out a message
which is effectively a RECOMMENDATION that *ISPs create a group*.
Similar for removing groups. His messages may be ignored (and
all too often are).
>and set configuration status of
>newsgroup
Moderation status, to some extent, yes. Though I thought he
just passed that along. Or is that another oversight job?
Moderation issues always give me a headache.
>and of course provide the official FAQs.
What FAQs? That's got nothing to do with news.announce.newgroups?
Russ are you involved with news.answers approvals? Oh, you
mean the group creation GUIDELINES. Like any other FAQ, it's
only worth what the users make it. But more significantly, they are
STRICTLY about the vetting process. They have nothing to do with
ISPs creating the groups once vetted, and that process may mean
squat to ISPs.
>Simple.
Oversimplified and much too inaccurate for the issue at hand.
wildstar
> There are?
>
> News to me.
>
> There is no official charter repository for Big Eight groups.
>
I posted a common source. Don't you want to start working on that.
How would you know if a group is moderated or not, Russ ?????
I worked enough with BBSs and these charter info were stored at a variety
of locations.
None were officially available to public. Dave Lawrence, certainly had
things recorded so he knew what was moderated and what was not.
I came across some CFV/RFD repositories. For example in the file that I'm
extracted from the file to be posted.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From le...@turbo.bio.net Wed Dec 31 23:59:59 1969
Control: newgroup comp/comp.ai.philosophy
Newsgroups: comp/comp.ai.philosophy
Path: bionet!lear
From: le...@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear)
Subject: newgroup comp/comp.ai.philosophy
Approved: le...@turbo.bio.net
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:59:59 GMT
Message-ID: <make-comp/comp.ai.p...@turbo.bio.net>
Comments: this header was wholly fictionally created on 7 Jan 1993
by ta...@uunet.uu.net
GROUP CHARTER:
Name: comp.ai.philosophy
Purpose: To provide a forum for the discussion of the philosophical
aspect of AI, in particular various thought experiments,
like the Chinese Room and the Turing Test. Discussion on
the nature of "thinking" and "understanding", and whether
computers will ever be able to "think" and "understand"
belongs here as well. This group is created to remove
this discussion from comp.ai.
Moderation: No.
From ne...@compass.com Thu May 23 13:15:49 1991
Path: rpi!think.com!compass!news
From: ne...@compass.com (news)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy.ctl
Subject: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <55...@compass.com>
Date: 23 May 91 16:04:36 GMT
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Distribution: world
Organization: Compass, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Lines: 1
Approved: ne...@compass.com
Philosophical aspects of Artificial Intelligence.
From ne...@tumif.UUCP Wed Jun 19 22:19:29 1991
Path: rpi!think.com!samsung!caen!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!fub!ivcmd!
tumif!news
From: ne...@tumif.UUCP (News-Administrator)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy.ctl
Subject: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <2...@tumif.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jun 91 21:30:35 GMT
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Distribution: UniDo
Organization: IVC Magdeburg
Lines: 0
Approved: we...@tumif.UUCP
From st...@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU Sun Apr 26 11:03:27 1992
Path: rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!decwrl!bu.edu!dartvax!
mars.caps.maine.edu!gandalf!steve
From: st...@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU (Steve E. Goldsmith)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy.ctl
Subject: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <15...@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU>
Date: 25 Apr 92 23:36:45 GMT
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Distribution: umcs
Organization: University of Maine Department of Computer Science
Lines: 0
Approved: st...@gandalf.UMCS.Maine.EDU
From ne...@utmb.edu Fri Nov 18 20:44:25 1994
Path: uunet!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!
atlantis.utmb.edu!utmb.edu!news
Date: 9 Nov 1994 13:48:07 CST
From: ne...@utmb.edu
Subject: cmsg newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy.ctl
Message-ID: <news-comp.ai.philosoph...@utmb.edu>
Approved: news
Lines: 3
Xref: uunet control:1393252
s
From ne...@marie.iijnet.or.jp Mon Jun 19 11:19:29 1995
Path: uunet!rose.uthscsa.edu!netnews.uthscsa.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!demon!btnet!matsu.nis.co.jp!wnoc-tyo-
news!spinnews!spinnews!spinosk!aries.ogis-ri.co.jp!senri-nc!wincgw1!
news.iij.ad.jp!jmasgw!green!marie!news
From: ne...@marie.iijnet.or.jp (Usenet News System)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy.ctl
Subject: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <33...@marie.iijnet.or.jp>
Date: 18 Jun 95 05:32:48 GMT
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Personal station in Asao-ku, Kawasaki, JPN.
Lines: 0
Approved: ne...@marie.iijnet.or.jp
Xref: uunet control:2165894
From ne...@Discreet.COM Wed Oct 22 11:41:53 1997
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <62lflc$6o...@logik.discreet.qc.ca>
From: ne...@Discreet.COM
Approved: ne...@Discreet.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: logik.Discreet.QC.CA
Path: news.isc.org!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!psinntp!
outsider.Discreet.COM!logik.Discreet.QC.CA!logik.Discreet.QC.CA
Date: 22 Oct 1997 18:11:56 GMT
Organization: Discreet Logic, Inc.
Subject: cmsg newgroup comp.ai.philosophy y
Control: newgroup comp.ai.philosophy y
Lines: 3
Xref: news.isc.org control.newgroup:11405
Control message generated by Netscape Collabra Server.
From u...@tin.org Sat Nov 3 16:28:25 2001
Path: news.isc.org!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!
sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!carnaval.risq.qc.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Urs Janßen <u...@tin.org>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.config,comp.control,comp.groups
Subject: cmsg rmgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Approved: Urs Janßen <u...@tin.org>
Organization: Arbeitskreis Kultur und Kommunikation
Message-ID: <5jph4aoju$4o9$1...@akk3.akk.uni-karlsruhe.de>
X-No-Archive: Control: rmgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Sender: Urs Janßen <u...@tin.org>
References: <9rn9cp$4o9$1...@akk3.akk.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Control: rmgroup comp.ai.philosophy
Lines: 4
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 00:28:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.169.27.24
X-Complaints-To: ab...@globetrotter.net
X-Trace: carnaval.risq.qc.ca 1004833700 142.169.27.24 (Sat, 03 Nov 2001
19:28:20 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 19:28:20 EST
Xref: news.isc.org control.rmgroup:109283
please remove the bogus newsgroup comp.ai.philosophy
--
kick the easy printer and behave it before its ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may know there is a store of this precisely:
----------------------------------------------------------------
GROUP CHARTER:
Name: comp.ai.philosophy
Purpose: To provide a forum for the discussion of the philosophical
aspect of AI, in particular various thought experiments,
like the Chinese Room and the Turing Test. Discussion on
the nature of "thinking" and "understanding", and whether
computers will ever be able to "think" and "understand"
belongs here as well. This group is created to remove
this discussion from comp.ai.
Moderation: No.
----------------------------------------------------------------
These are "Group Charters". So there is a variety of spots holding the
group charter. When a group is formed a group charter is formed and a
list of who is moderator if the list is moderated.
Russ Allbery
> As for the FAQs, you or those who work with you manage the official FAQs.
Er, no.
The only "official" FAQ I maintain or am involved in is the FAQ on how to
create a newsgroup or change the status of a newsgroup, since that's sort
of directly involved with the volunteer job I do. I maintain a variety of
other informational FAQs on a variety of things, none of which are about
spam policies, abuse policies, or how to run newsgroups from a social
standpoint. They're basically just technical information that I've found
time to document.
> A series of general use policies existed for moderation, how newsgroups
> are created and voting policy. You know what I am referring to.
No, not really, unless you're talking about the Guidelines. That one I
maintain. It *only* talks about how to create, remove, or change the
moderation status of groups, though.
> There are also policies of what Excessive Multi-Posting is and all.
Don't maintain that. Have nothing to do with it, in fact, and have flatly
disagreed with it at various pointsin the past.
> These admins were the ones who generally posted these general FAQs. Each
> NG that is "moderated" used these guidelines within the discretion of
> the moderator.
I really have no idea what you're talking about now. That doesn't sound
at all like the Usenet that I use.
> You as an admin is not responsible for how a moderator moderates but set
> the guidelines.
On how to moderate newsgroups? Nope. Not in the slightest.
Russ Allbery
>> There is no official charter repository for Big Eight groups.
> I posted a common source. Don't you want to start working on that.
> How would you know if a group is moderated or not, Russ ?????
Er, I'd look up whether it was moderated? What does that have to do with
the charter?
> I worked enough with BBSs
Usenet isn't a BBS.
> None were officially available to public. Dave Lawrence, certainly had
> things recorded so he knew what was moderated and what was not.
Yes. That's not the charter.
> I came across some CFV/RFD repositories.
Yes. That's also not the charter, other than being the *initial* charter.
Many (if not most) group charters have changed in practice since the group
was created, just from the usage choices of the people who participate in
them. By and large, those changes are not documented anywhere. Relying
on archived RFDs to make any sorts of decisions about the usage of groups
is generally a bad idea.
> These are "Group Charters". So there is a variety of spots holding the
> group charter. When a group is formed a group charter is formed and a
> list of who is moderator if the list is moderated.
Yes. And that initial charter is confusingly included in newsgroup
control messages from time to time as if it were guaranteed to be current,
when it's not.
Now, I think that having an official charter for each group that is voted
on isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's not something that we currently
have. (And even if we had that, it wouldn't be me running it; it would be
some sort of probably democratic procedure involving the people who were
interested in the group. The function of the n.a.n moderators for such a
thing would be primarily secretarial.)
wildstar
> Yes. That's not the charter.
>
> charter. Many (if not most) group charters have changed in practice
> since the group was created, just from the usage choices of the people
> who participate in them. By and large, those changes are not
> documented anywhere. Relying on archived RFDs to make any sorts of
> decisions about the usage of groups is generally a bad idea.
>
> control messages from time to time as if it were guaranteed to be
> current, when it's not.
>
> Now, I think that having an official charter for each group that is
> voted on isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's not something that we
> currently have. (And even if we had that, it wouldn't be me running
> it; it would be some sort of probably democratic procedure involving
> the people who were interested in the group. The function of the
> n.a.n moderators for such a thing would be primarily secretarial.)
>
Once a charter is voted and posted. It is copy&pasted to a .txt file and
stored on a folder. Giving a central location for the charters.
This was sort of done in the past on things. The crew in the 80s did
that. Since it would be rather difficult to ensure an NG is moderated or
not and who is. That is what I am referring to. For example, if we have a
charter to comp.sys.c1 (non-existant NG - currently), this NG votes on a
charter. A folder on a file-storage unit would have a directory named
Newsgroup Charters and a subdirectory name comp.sys.c1, with a file name
comp_sys_c1-charter.txt and a comp_sys_c1-charter-update09-24-2004.txt
Starting to get the picture. This does not say you have control over them
but the NAN admins (You and your partners) would have a common source for
charters. A copy of the official charter should be available to the NGs.
It makes it alot easier to find charters. Change of Moderators will
require an update to the Moderator list in the official charter and this
would follow a vote by the NG who will be the moderator or whatever
policy that you have for change of moderator. Say if the moderator is
dead for example.
There is some sense of central sources but there really is no *power* in
your hands or the admins. Just the moderator.
Joe Bernstein
wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This has been much contradicted, in particular the last phrase, but
it's worth mentioning that for a long time David Lawrence *did*
provide a rather egregious number of FAQs.
"List of Active Newsgroups"
"List of Moderators"
"Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies"
"Checkgroups Message (without INET groups)"
"Checkgroups Message (with INET groups)"
"New USENET Groups"
"Current Status of USENET Newsgroup Proposals"
The one about bogus groups (I don't have a copy handy to check the
subject line)
"How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup"
and several more related to that
This isn't counting the posts that he posted but that were under
someone else's name (such as the guide to newsgroup naming by David
Wright). Nor the ones I'm less familiar with, for example, any he
might have posted in his capacity as moderator of news.lists.
Furthermore, if this person is under the mistaken but very common
impression that David Lawrence inherited Gene Spafford's job, he's
got even more basis for his claims, since Spafford was the original
moderator of news.announce.newusers and saw to the posting of all
the FAQs that lived there, as well as many (but not all) of the
above.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Once a charter is voted and posted. It is copy&pasted to a .txt file and
>stored on a folder. Giving a central location for the charters.
>This was sort of done in the past on things. The crew in the 80s did
>that. Since it would be rather difficult to ensure an NG is moderated or
>not and who is. That is what I am referring to. For example, if we have a
>charter to comp.sys.c1 (non-existant NG - currently), this NG votes on a
>charter. A folder on a file-storage unit would have a directory named
>Newsgroup Charters and a subdirectory name comp.sys.c1, with a file name
>comp_sys_c1-charter.txt and a comp_sys_c1-charter-update09-24-2004.txt
>Starting to get the picture. This does not say you have control over them
>but the NAN admins (You and your partners) would have a common source for
>charters. A copy of the official charter should be available to the NGs.
>It makes it alot easier to find charters. Change of Moderators will
>require an update to the Moderator list in the official charter and this
>would follow a vote by the NG who will be the moderator or whatever
>policy that you have for change of moderator. Say if the moderator is
>dead for example.
>There is some sense of central sources but there really is no *power* in
>your hands or the admins. Just the moderator.
All that is well and fine, and probably what these folks ALREADY
have planned on doing. BUT you started this subthread stating
AS FACT that the info for referencing already exists (it does not),
stating AS FACT that Russ had that info (he does not), stating
AS FACT that Russ is in charge of such info (he is not), and stating
AS FACT that Russ could effect it (there is no certainty of that
at all). That's what this discussion is about. We HOPE someday to
have a charter process and repository, we HOPE someday (soon) that
the checkgroups list is honoured universally, we HOPE someday to be
able to have more flexible control over group removal (and thus group
creation), we HOPE someday to at least partially administer
moderated groups, and we HOPE someday that the majority of ISPs
will honour the recommendations that come from n.a.n. and its
spinoff services. But we don't have any of those right now
(except arguably in part the last), it it will take a lot of
legwork to make them happen.
Ken Arromdee
>That's only if the ISPs chose that to be so. Creating Big-8
>newsgroups based on Russ and company is actually a voluntary action.
Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I remember when
people said the same thing about Tale.
Following a single person's newsgroup control messages (at least deletion
messages) is something which has network effects (pun not intended). It
would do little good for an individual site to ignore Russ's messages,
because the usefulness of a newsgroup depends on there being other sites
which carry the same group. It would take a large number of sites all
changing at the same time to make any difference. This is as unlikely as
Usenet getting rid of G5, and for much the same reason.
So yes, following Russ's messages is "voluntary", but you can't really
refuse to follow them on an individual basis, only a group basis, and
the logistics of refusing to follow them on a group basis are so bad that it
may as well not be possible.
>If ISPs decided to stop paying attention tomorrow, Russ, this
>newsgroup and anything that comes from them becomes irrelevant,
>immediately. That's already happening in a significantly less
>extreme way: many new groups require lobbying at relatively more
>ISPs than in the past.
The network effect applies to creating groups on one's own and refusing
Russ's deletion messages, not deleting groups on one's own and refusing
Russ's creation messages.
--
Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"There are some corners of the universe that have bred the most terrible
things, things which act against everything that we believe in. They must be
fought." --Dr. Who, "The Moonbase"
wildstar
news:bagevg$v3h$4...@blue.rahul.net:
> Technically, this is true. Practically, it isn't. The charter that's
> in the CFV, since it is the only charter created using a process
> agreed on Usenet-wide, is much harder to dispute than a charter
> created later on using another process.
>
> This makes that first charter into a de-facto official charter, even
> though the system was not set up with that intention. The fact that
> there are lots of problems with using it as one just means that it's a
> poorly functioning de-facto official charter, not that it isn't one at
> all.
Change of charters where done in one of the NANs or its earlier
incarnations. Since USENET came from the older network systems of the
80s. The "USENET". All charters of NGs built in that time frame at
creation would be the official ones for the older NGs. Since we accept
changes. So the ammendments that where done should follow the same
principles as laws. Since they are changed over time.
The official charter of a newsgroup would be the compilation of the
ammendments done to the original charter at creation.
Just as ammendments done to laws. So if a newsgroup was changed from
unmoderated to moderated newsgroup. The changes to the charter would be a
change of moderation status and who is the moderator. Originally, this
was more centralized. A master program was there to change the master
database of the charters and that would cross into the rest of the
Newservers as they where networked together. Since the Internet days,
things clearly became much more ambiguous.
Joe Bernstein
wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Change of charters where done in one of the NANs or its earlier
> incarnations. Since USENET came from the older network systems of the
> 80s. The "USENET". All charters of NGs built in that time frame at
> creation would be the official ones for the older NGs. Since we accept
> changes. So the ammendments that where done should follow the same
> principles as laws. Since they are changed over time.
I have the strong impression that your knowledge of Usenet's
history is no better than your grammar, but on the off chance
that you actually know something I don't, I'd really appreciate
your backing *any* of this stuff up. Please give me *one* example.
It doesn't have to be actual evidence, like a book saying just
which network Usenet supposedly came from in the 1980s, or a
URL to a post that shows a charter for a newsgroup in 1985 (let
alone a charter *amendment*). Even the *name* of this alleged
precursor network, or of a newsgroup that allegedly had a charter
back then, would be enough to get me started on finding out whether
there's anything to your story.
Of course, if you're just full of it, you'll just keep repeating
these claims without doing so.
It dawns on me that maybe you're under the impression that Fidonet
is part of Usenet's ancestry. Didn't Fidonet have a relatively
bureaucratic structure? Anyone know whether that extended to
written and amendable charters?
wildstar
@reader1.panix.com:
> I have the strong impression that your knowledge of Usenet's
> history is no better than your grammar, but on the off chance
> that you actually know something I don't, I'd really appreciate
> your backing *any* of this stuff up. Please give me *one* example.
> It doesn't have to be actual evidence, like a book saying just
> which network Usenet supposedly came from in the 1980s, or a
> URL to a post that shows a charter for a newsgroup in 1985 (let
> alone a charter *amendment*). Even the *name* of this alleged
> precursor network, or of a newsgroup that allegedly had a charter
> back then, would be enough to get me started on finding out whether
> there's anything to your story.
>
> Of course, if you're just full of it, you'll just keep repeating
> these claims without doing so.
>
> It dawns on me that maybe you're under the impression that Fidonet
> is part of Usenet's ancestry. Didn't Fidonet have a relatively
> bureaucratic structure? Anyone know whether that extended to
> written and amendable charters?
>
> Joe Bernstein
>
USENET existed prior to internet and network infrastructures were very
simplistic. All the major networks in those days where Multi-Star and
Token-Rings. So a central database was common. USENET was a quasi network
though. Based on the multi-Star national networks of those days.
Here is a place:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/part1/
Note: USENET where reconstructed over time. Also you must remember that the
networks of these days are far from the way they are now. Mostly, the NS
where held at various Universities and progressed world-wide with early
TCP/IP. (Of course IP meant inter-networking not internet since the word
internet was coined many years later. As of 1986, there was no "Internet"
but there was internetworking.
Changes in 1986 was chaning from UUCP protocols to the newer TCP/IP
protocols. A central database was used to store charters created during
creation and where mirrored across to all the NSs. BTW: NS = news servers
in this case.
At this time of the "Great Renaming" was interconnection of ARPAnet and the
individual networks including the USENET. (Whatever it was called at that
time) Initially this network was a network of news servers. Content were
mirrored. The admins held copies of the charters and this was fairly
administrated like any other networks. These university admins where later
called the CABAL by many due to misunderstandings of what these people did
and rumors. One individual was generally in charge of officiallizing the
creation or deletion or alteration of newsgroups.
The link provided is a summarization and you'll notice a Gene Spafford's
connection. Over time charters where ammended. Who was moderator ? So
forth. It was simple. The name change of the moderator would be done to the
charter. (Probably after a vote of some kind)
Early networks where much simpler when you only worried about 100 NSs at
most. This was much simpler than our 10,000+ News Servers of today over a
matrix/hybrid multi-star networks of networks we call the internet.
In such a case, having a central Charter DB would ease things up.
Joe Bernstein
subscribers who read news from Panix or NewsGuy, at least. I have
evidence that this post failed to propagate to at least two other
servers, including the one from which I post this, and I suspect
it also failed to reach the server of the person I was replying to.
The only change to what I posted before, after the quotation, is at
the beginning of the second paragraph.
Subsequently to this post, I posted another reply to this person
elsewhere in this thread, angry that ?he had ignored what follows.
I apologise for that. However, my attempt to answer ?his
surprisingly civil (though still wrong) reply foundered in *yet
another* computer crash, and my second attempt is what led to my
discovering the propagation problem. At this time, therefore, it
makes little sense to me to answer ?him at all until I again have
significant free time on Tuesday or maybe Monday night. In the
meantime, I'd like to offer a URL in return for the one offered me;
although this is part of my own website, the particular spot pointed
to is largely a set of references to others' work, with some URLs.
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/newsgroups/history/start-post>
On to the repost. This is also a sort of propagation experiment;
I'm using Supersedes to see if that has any interesting effects.
In article <Xns93825E06F6967wi...@216.168.3.44>,
wildstar <wilds...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once a charter is voted and posted. It is copy&pasted to a .txt file
> and stored on a folder. Giving a central location for the charters.
>
> This was sort of done in the past on things. The crew in the 80s did
> that.
I started a post quoting this much and contradicting it, but got
carried away, and after a while my web browser predictably crashed
my computer. (I'm coming to the conclusion that no web browser has
ever been written that will run on a Macintosh with System 7 and
*not* crash that computer every couple of hours. It's really quite
frustrating.)
I might've wanted to post the detailed version later, for historical
interest, had the useless file-recovery program Panix runs worked, but
here's what I *can* say. The word "charter" was never used in
an *archived* post to net.news.group, the predecessor of news.groups
that existed until late in 1986, to refer to a written explanation in
any detail of what a group was for and how it worked. It was used in
two other senses that I suspect eventually merged to create the one
we're used to: one was to refer to what we call the description line;
the other was to refer to the entire stock of lore about a group. For
example, by the former sense, news.groups's charter reads "Discussions
and lists of newsgroups"; by the latter sense, news.groups is
chartered to have a discussion every January of trends in newsgroup
creation, and is chartered to be the group to which followups are set
for RFDs, CFVs, and RESULTs.
In late 1986 and mid-1987, the Great Renaming moved groups from net.*
and mod.* into the Big 7 hierarchies. There is definitely no record
of written charters being part of this process. I haven't yet done a
detailed count, but I'd bet that at least 20 and perhaps as many as
100 of the presently active Big 8 groups derive directly from the
Great Renaming; news.groups is, of course, one of these.
In early 1987, the inet distribution was created. This is the source
of at least 35 and probably at least 50 of the presently active Big 8
newsgroups. So far, I know of only one of these to have acquired a
written charter; there may be as many as ten or twenty more, though I
doubt it, but at *least* 35 inet groups entered the official list now
known as the Big 8 *without* being chartered, of which over 20 were
added just last October.
The first preserved use of "charter" in news.groups to mean a written
document, is a statement by the proponent for rec.food.wine that he
would post the "charter" (yes, in quotes) to rec.food.drink shortly,
in April 1987. He didn't do so, so I'm not actually sure he did mean
a written document. The next is an extremely detailed charter, poorly
organised but fundamentally similar to modern charters, presented for
a proposed moderated comp.unix.unix-at in perhaps October 1987. (I'm
being tentative because Google's dates in the 1980s are not reliable
unless you go to "original format", and the particular misbegotten web
browser I'm using at the moment for some reason can't *see* the link
to "original format".) Neither group was actually created.
I found slightly more than forty groups created after the Great
Renaming and before February of 1988 (that's as far as I got when
the computer crashed), of which I persuaded myself that Google
showed something similar to a real charter for one (comp.protocols.iso,
I think). I had about fifty or more groups to go before the creation
of news.announce.newgroups in August or so of 1989. Since
news.announce.newgroups *did* have a written, and voted upon, charter,
it's clear that some of those fifty-odd must have too, and probably
even some of those are archived at Google.
I only got as far as checking one group at the ISC control message
archive, which was talk.religion.newage (perhaps the oldest Big 8
group not created in the Great Renaming and not since re-chartered;
see the RFD to unmoderate misc.handicap for the other oldest Big 8
group). For this group, three control messages are archived; two
are rmgroups (not, so far as I can see, answered by booster newgroups;
why not?), while the earliest includes no charter.
The archives of news.announce.newgroups's early months include
numerous groups being created without written charters, although
the overall trend was clearly towards every group having a
charter. I don't yet know what the last Big 8 group to be added
without a charter was, but I'd bet it was added in 1990-1991.
The charter for misc.rural, in particular, is archived from CFVs
posted to news.groups, but never appeared in news.announce.newgroups.
Basically, I don't have conclusive data, but I'd say that for at least
100 currently official Big 8 groups, and conceivably as many as 300,
there is no archived charter known to me, and for many, there's good
evidence against the idea that a written charter in our sense existed
when they were created. Out of a total of 2200 or so, this is a
significant, though not dominant, share of the whole. And in
particular, I'd be surprised if we had written charters for even half
of the groups created in the 1980s, despite what the previous poster
claimed.
wildstar
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
> Apologies to any who've already seen this, which would include
> subscribers who read news from Panix or NewsGuy, at least. I have
> evidence that this post failed to propagate to at least two other
> servers, including the one from which I post this, and I suspect
> it also failed to reach the server of the person I was replying to.
> The only change to what I posted before, after the quotation, is at
> the beginning of the second paragraph.
>
I'm copy & pating this to a .txt file. I'll try to read through this to
understand the nature of the writing. It is difficult to follow. Early
charters (as we call them now are simply a description of the newsgroup
and if it was moderated would be the name of the moderator. Sure things
where likely stored as separate files. The file that notes the name of
the moderator plus the description file would be the equivelent of out
modern charter.
Let's hunt comp.sys.cbm for example. This is clearly an unmoderated NG.
Its charter is its description. So we really have an idea of what they
are.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Early
>charters (as we call them now are simply a description of the newsgroup
>and if it was moderated would be the name of the moderator. Sure things
>where likely stored as separate files. The file that notes the name of
>the moderator plus the description file would be the equivelent of out
>modern charter.
>Let's hunt comp.sys.cbm for example. This is clearly an unmoderated NG.
>Its charter is its description. So we really have an idea of what they
>are.
As Joe was saying, the matter of an elucidated topic description
was handled inconsistently in early CFVs. As late as 1991, many
still only used the term charter for what we would now call the
Description: line (as you even point out), and thus would not
qualify for entry into a charter database. This discussion began
with the assertion that existing charter info from vote results
could be used to guide decisions on what was considered an acceptable
posting. One line group descriptions are not adequate for disputes
that go deeper than what is clearly off-topic (e.g. most spam
vs dvd software problem in dvd hardware group).
Still other early CFVs mixed the rationale with the group
description. That probably wouldn't discount them, but sometimes
it isn't clear if they should be used as a charter at all, as
they were more concerned with why the group should be created
(moot now) rather than what kind of postings were (not)
appropriate.
wildstar
> As Joe was saying, the matter of an elucidated topic description
> was handled inconsistently in early CFVs. As late as 1991, many
> still only used the term charter for what we would now call the
> Description: line (as you even point out), and thus would not
> qualify for entry into a charter database. This discussion began
> with the assertion that existing charter info from vote results
> could be used to guide decisions on what was considered an acceptable
> posting. One line group descriptions are not adequate for disputes
> that go deeper than what is clearly off-topic (e.g. most spam
> vs dvd software problem in dvd hardware group).
>
> Still other early CFVs mixed the rationale with the group
> description. That probably wouldn't discount them, but sometimes
> it isn't clear if they should be used as a charter at all, as
> they were more concerned with why the group should be created
> (moot now) rather than what kind of postings were (not)
> appropriate.
Then we should sort of require that all newsgroups whos charter is prior
to a certain year to update the charter to fit with the scope of modern
policies on charters. Simply enough a one liner is simple. Discussion of
Commodore 8-Bit computers is clear. Anything else will be consider off-
topic. Even a one-liner that is explicit in its wording is clear. Off-
topic is spamming or trolling. There is ways to manage that. Bogus
newsgroups do not apply and require an appropriate RFD/CFV or be deleted.
Brian Mailman
>
> Then we should sort of require that all newsgroups whos charter is prior
> to a certain year to update the charter to fit with the scope of modern
> policies on charters.
Why?
A charter is a statement of the proponent(s)' intentions, not a
set-in-concrete Constitution. Groups change and develop and even if the
busywork of "updating" were to be done, they would be out-of-date in a
couple years or less.
You seem to want a bureaucracy as well as a clearly-defined hierarchy
and Usenet is anything but that.
B/
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>ru.ig...@usask.ca wrote in news:baljod$hi6$1...@tribune.usask.ca:
>> As Joe was saying, the matter of an elucidated topic description
>> was handled inconsistently in early CFVs. As late as 1991, many
>> still only used the term charter for what we would now call the
>> Description: line (as you even point out), and thus would not
>> qualify for entry into a charter database. This discussion began
>> with the assertion that existing charter info from vote results
>> could be used to guide decisions on what was considered an acceptable
>> posting. One line group descriptions are not adequate for disputes
>> that go deeper than what is clearly off-topic (e.g. most spam
>> vs dvd software problem in dvd hardware group).
>Then we should sort of require that all newsgroups whos charter is prior
>to a certain year to update the charter to fit with the scope of modern
>policies on charters.
We can't. At the very least, we don't have a physical place to
put them. Then we would have to work out how to organize them.
Then we would have to work out how to accept submissions. Then
we would have to work out how to process and approve submissions.
Then we would have to work out what to do with old charters
(because groups with charters will also use the process). Then
we would have to figure out who would administer this. We may
even have to create a new group for this (e.g. news.groups.charters?).
That isn't to say that someone couldn't just go ahead and start
doing this on their own.
Next, there's no way of forcing such a thing. And then if there
was, there's the sheer volume. There are over 1000 newsgroups
that have been created since 1990, half of those before 1995.
I have no idea how many were created before 1990. We as a newsgroup
would be swamped trying to approve that many charters in a year.
>Simply enough a one liner is simple. Discussion of
>Commodore 8-Bit computers is clear. Anything else will be consider off-
>topic. Even a one-liner that is explicit in its wording is clear.
Not enough at all. How does one deal with a complaint involving
related or split topic spaces? Most charters allow crossposting,
some don't. Some groups allow commercial or marketplace postings,
others don't. Some groups allow binaries, most don't. Some groups
allow postings in other languages, some don't. Some groups
require several sentences or points to outline the scope of topics.
Some groups require explicit exclusions, e.g. *.software vs.
*.programmer where one is about using software and the other is
about writing software. Clearly one line charters do NOT suffice.
If one line descriptions were enough the group description lines
would suffice, but they don't suffice or we'd still be using them
for charters.
When we set up a charter administration process (not "if"; the idea
has been on our minds for quite a while now), there's no point in
skimping on the text if we and the proponents are going to go to
the trouble of exercising the process.
Joe Bernstein
> And then if there
> was, there's the sheer volume. There are over 1000 newsgroups
> that have been created since 1990, half of those before 1995.
> I have no idea how many were created before 1990.
The last lists of newsgroups posted in 1989, on December 23, can
probably be taken as a good approximation of how many newsgroups
existed on 1/1/1990, and they included 383 Big 7 newsgroups and
53 inet newsgroups.
I don't know how many of those are still active. But I do know
that the first reorgs, in 1990, for comp.sys.mac.*, comp.sys.ibm.pc.*
(which actually created three sub-hierarchies, not one), and
comp.unix.*, none of them had individual group charters. So
the problem isn't limited to pre-1990 groups. (To be more precise,
not only did none of them have charters in the modern sense, but
they didn't even all have anything resembling description lines;
comp.sys.ibm.pc.*, a flagrantly weird vote, definitely didn't.
Description lines were optional, and mildly unusual, in CFVs until
sometime after February 1991; I wouldn't be even slightly shocked if
tale instituted that requirement precisely to reduce the work involved
in maintaining the List of Active Newsgroups, when he took over the
lists.)
> We as a newsgroup
> would be swamped trying to approve that many charters in a year.
Well, duh.
(But be fair. We'd be swamped trying to approve a charter for
*news.groups* in a year. The other 300-odd would just be icing
on the cake.)
I've been arguing with this person about Usenet history, partly
because I feel possessive about the topic and partly because whenever
someone says something wildly at variance with what I know, there's
that faint hope that they have access to information I've never seen.
(Is this what original research always feels like?) I'm no longer even
interested in arguing the practicalities of how to run Usenet with
someone who demonstrably doesn't know much about it.
Still, since I still think it's perfectly possible that I'll set up a
charter archive *and* administration system free-lance some time
if/when I have broadband connect and a Linux box, maybe it would
help to explain how I'd go about it. Not very complicated, really.
I'd set up the archive, to include charters from a variety of sources
with clear indications of what the sources were. I'd start a thread
or two in news.groups to hammer out some policies or at least have
some fun getting nowhere at the task. And then I'd put a small note
somewhere on the website saying "Now accepting submissions", linked
to a page that explained the policy, sit back, and wait.
It's possible that someone else would advertise, but I very much doubt
*I* would want to. If the whole thing were a success, sure, *then*
I'd post an announcement to news.announce.important or some such...
But where would I get off going and invading hundreds of groups to
tell them they had to shape up for my archive?
So why is it any better if it's the moderators of news.announce.newgroups
who say it, instead of me?
"Hello, talk.bizarre. You are the oldest newsgroup in the Big 8,
and you're descended from a group that the patron saint of the
newsgroup creation process tried to eliminate. You're dedicated to
chaos in every form. But now Gene Spafford's heirs want to get a
reliable charter for every newsgroup, just to make things more
orderly for ISPs and users. You have thirty days to comply."
"Hi, Mark Horton. You remember back in 1981 when you came up with
the idea of posting lists of newsgroups? Well, somewhere along
the way that turned into this really involved process that produces
written documents called 'charters'. We find it inexcusable that
you didn't bother to keep news.announce.important current with the
changing criteria for a proper Big 8 newsgroup by writing a charter.
Please correct this oversight promptly, or we will have to remove the
group."
Sheesh.
wildstar
Newsgroup Charter
------------------------------------------
News-Group Name: comp.sys.c1
Moderatated: Yes/No
Moderators: (List moderator name and email or N/A if not applicible)
Description: This newsgroups is about discussion the C-One reconfigurable
computer. (May be as definitive as NG feels)
Allow crosspost: Yes/No
Allow Multipost: Yes/No
Spam definition: (Group proposed definition of spam) May be any length
Default language: English
Accept other language except the default language: Yes/No
Other Language: (List languages accepted or N/A if previous line says No
or ANY)
Rules: List of rules (No Rules Indicated if no rules are indicated)
Other: (Other notes about the NG)
This is just an conceptual example Charter. Add to it as you feel and
store it in an publically web-accessible FTP site. Go for a 100 MB FTP
site. This not intended exactly as a beuracracy. There is no control over
the actual NGs by the NANs. Only the moderator has control to filter or
ban, ect. These NANs would be centralizing information so that NS can
have an accurate source of info. To change a charter or NG rules which
will be available through here and making an ammendment. ISPs should use
this public source as an area of verifying complaints from an NG user.
NAN are solely not responsible for how a NG is moderated if moderated.
NAN would simply be a centralized information resource so that NSs have a
single source with (mirrors) for getting info. Since this information is
a public resource then NG charter should be public and this is a public
service of the NAN.
Any ideas ?????
ru.ig...@usask.ca
[snip multi-point charter example]
>This is just an conceptual example Charter.
Well, at least now you can see why a one line charter won't do.
I wouldn't mind seeing charters with a checklist, but I don't know
if it's necessary to codify it so rigidly either, let alone truly
desirable. Charters are documents meant to be READ by PEOPLE.
They aren't computer database entries. As such, they tend to be
more free form. But the one thing your example doesn't address
is if you realize the bulk of charter texts have little to do with
the items on your list. Indeed, the items you list are part of my
checklist I carry around in my head for incidentals after the main
body of the charter when I critique RFDs. I used them because
they were easy pickings. Apart from explaining what the subject
is (i.e. what a c-1 computer is), often a charter should list a few
types of postings that are on-topic (e.g. performance comparisons with
other machines, software availability queries, hardware problem
questions), to give readers and wouldbe posters an idea of the
flavour and breadth of the group. And just as often, a Charter
needs to list types of posting that look appropriate to the
description, but actually aren't (e.g. advocacy, source files
for programs to run on c-1) to give readers and wouldbe posters
an idea of where some of the boundaries are. In my critiques of
RFDs, I often suggest listing a few example topics of both types.
Those are the kinds of things ISPs are going to look for in a
dispute.
Oh, there's another failing in your checklist scheme. There's
always a question of degree in some of the points. For example,
in unmoderated groups, it is impossible to prevent any kind of
posting from appearing. I often point this out when someone states
something like "commercial postings are forbidden". Technically,
the best anyone can state is "commercial postings are discouraged".
So a "commercial postings: yes/no" is a bit misleading. Now that
doesn't stop proponents from continuing with "forbidden" as some
feel that strong wording tends to keep the more timid spammers
away. On the other hand, some groups welcome limited amounts of
commercial postings, which is sort of yes, and sort of no. My
point is, not only is the wording useful in conveying intent, but
a simple yes/no may simply not accurately reflect what the proponent
wants. That's what I meant by "so rigidly" above. A free form
is more flexible.
There is also a news.groups-regular rationale for not using your
format. This is more true for the RATIONALE, but how a proponent
words a charter can help to indicate how the proponent is thinking,
and allow us to address misconceptions or other issues.
I don't even want to begin to think about moderated group charters.
>Any ideas ?????
1) read the Big-8 newsgroup creation FAQs
2) read about a year's worth of newsgroup CFVs.
3) read about a 6 month's worth of proposal discussions from news.groups,
or if you think that's too much, read a year's worth (yes, I have
that right).
You should be able to see the rationale for my arguments from that.
wildstar
> Well, at least now you can see why a one line charter won't do.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing charters with a checklist, but I don't know
> if it's necessary to codify it so rigidly either, let alone truly
> desirable. Charters are documents meant to be READ by PEOPLE.
> They aren't computer database entries. As such, they tend to be
> more free form. But the one thing your example doesn't address
> is if you realize the bulk of charter texts have little to do with
> the items on your list. Indeed, the items you list are part of my
> checklist I carry around in my head for incidentals after the main
> body of the charter when I critique RFDs. I used them because
> they were easy pickings. Apart from explaining what the subject
> is (i.e. what a c-1 computer is), often a charter should list a few
> types of postings that are on-topic (e.g. performance comparisons with
> other machines, software availability queries, hardware problem
> questions), to give readers and wouldbe posters an idea of the
> flavour and breadth of the group. And just as often, a Charter
> needs to list types of posting that look appropriate to the
> description, but actually aren't (e.g. advocacy, source files
> for programs to run on c-1) to give readers and wouldbe posters
> an idea of where some of the boundaries are. In my critiques of
> RFDs, I often suggest listing a few example topics of both types.
> Those are the kinds of things ISPs are going to look for in a
> dispute.
That is why I have a Description and Other. The Description should
describe the list. Details about a computer platform would be part of an
accompanying FAQs. Early methods where a Charter does not go without an
FAQ file. The Other: would contain the misc. information like what the
frell is a C-1. Maybe a link to an FAQ file. Whatever. It was not
strictly a checklist but partially a checklist as Description and Other
would be the Description of the Newsgroup and other info. Also if you
look closer, some of that was minimalized.
Spam Definition would be what the group would call spam. This may be a
paragraph or two.
Rules would be the Rules or Guidelines. Like I said a good charter would
expand from what I have listed. The charter is not a complete FAQ of the
overall NG.
> Oh, there's another failing in your checklist scheme. There's
> always a question of degree in some of the points. For example,
> in unmoderated groups, it is impossible to prevent any kind of
> posting from appearing. I often point this out when someone states
> something like "commercial postings are forbidden". Technically,
> the best anyone can state is "commercial postings are discouraged".
> So a "commercial postings: yes/no" is a bit misleading. Now that
> doesn't stop proponents from continuing with "forbidden" as some
> feel that strong wording tends to keep the more timid spammers
> away. On the other hand, some groups welcome limited amounts of
> commercial postings, which is sort of yes, and sort of no. My
> point is, not only is the wording useful in conveying intent, but
> a simple yes/no may simply not accurately reflect what the proponent
> wants. That's what I meant by "so rigidly" above. A free form
> is more flexible.
True, go with 3 states: Yes, commercial postings are accepted; Commercial
postings are discouraged; No - commercial postings are forbidden
The middle state would indicate a middle zone where it is discouraged.
I may have been rather rigid on the Yes/No but that is not a problem.
Having clear and distict choices on things that should be clear.
Then again, I was giving a tentative example for you to begin. This
wasn't something that took a year in a half to construct. It really
doesn't take that long to come up with a charter. If a group is moderated
then you list moderator and email. If unmoderated then you don't list a
moderator in the charter. I provided a boiler-plate concept. You can
build on it.
I spend more time programming then designing charters but they are not
something that requires 20 years to do.
Things that need to be distinct. Are you a moderated newsgroup. Y/N. No
means you are unmoderated. No moderator listing required. If you are then
you require moderator name & email. There are policies on voting/choosing
a moderator. There is a key to keep spammers away as much as possible. So
if the newgroup absolutely does *NOT* want commercial spamming then you
want strong wordings against them. A moderated newsgroups would have the
power to block them.
If you want 4 states then here is an idea.
-----------------------------------------------------
YES-Commercial posting is fully accepted
YES-BUT limited amount of commercial posting. (With this option, a
definition of what is the acceptable 'limited' amount that the NG
accepts)
Commercial posting is discouraged
No-Commercial posting is absolutely forbidden
-----------------------------------------------------
There is many options and flexibility. Really !!!!
Brian Mailman
>
> In article <3ECEBAF3...@sfo.com>,
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> >A charter is a statement of the proponent(s)' intentions, not a
> >set-in-concrete Constitution.
>
> Constitution already.
What circumstances? It's only a projection of what a proponent wishes
the group to be. If the users change it... <shrug>
Then again, there's a greasy spot where that horse was so it really
isn't very productive to discuss this with you.
> >Groups change and develop and even if the
> >busywork of "updating" were to be done, they would be out-of-date in a
> >couple years or less.
>
> Refusing to allow updates will not keep people from using them, so all that
> the refusal accomplishes is making them even more out of date.
So what? A charter is out of date the moment the group passes.
> >You seem to want a bureaucracy as well as a clearly-defined hierarchy
> >and Usenet is anything but that.
>
> Not having bureaucracy may be better than having it, but on the other hand,
> a bureaucracy which works by clear rules is better than one which works at
> everybody's whim.
Cooperative anarchies work quite well, actually. Insisting on
netcopping and hidebound rules doesn't.
B/
Russ Allbery
> Then again, there's a greasy spot where that horse was so it really
> isn't very productive to discuss this with you.
Ken spends a lot of time in groups full of incredibly anal-retentive
people who argue incessantly about this sort of thing. There's a reason
why I dread RFDs that have anything to do with the rec.arts.comics.*
hierarchy.
Russ Allbery
> A netcop can always say "you've got to follow that charter" with some
> justification.
This is the statement with which I don't agree, which is why I don't agree
with the rest of your conclusions.
Brian Mailman
>
> In article <3ECEFC34...@sfo.com>,
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> >Cooperative anarchies work quite well, actually. Insisting on
> >netcopping and hidebound rules doesn't.
> I wasn't so much thinking of netcopping myself, but of the problems that
> happen when other people netcop. A netcop can always say "you've got to
> follow that charter" with some justification.
What justification? What would back that up, except for some sort of
peer pressure?[1]
I hang out in alt.config (and may volunteer for the reconstituted UVM if
that ever should happen) and experience seems to show that the
overwhelming majority of news admins give a rat's rosy red rectum about
charters in unmoderated groups (and as you know, charters in moderated
groups are enforced or modified by the moderators). Any charters.
Perhaps an occasional one will look at a FAQ for a group developed by
consensus of the users, but that's about it.
> If you try to create a charter
> through some other process, he can refuse to accept your process as valid.
There are those who don't accept any process as valid.
> Since his charter was created through an official Usenet vote, you can't do
> the same back.
>
> (If the new charter comes first and the netcop second, you're OK, but that's
> not always the case.)
Despite my interleaved comment, I can't wrap my head around what you're
saying above. I thought we were talking about the uselessness of
rechartering "unchartered" groups.
[1]I participate in one of the smaller rec.food.* groups that manages it
quite well and in a cordial manner that doesn't drive off potential
users. Someone posts an offtopic request and someone else will answer
it and add... "you'll probably be better off asking in X group because
they specialize in the subject you're talking about." or "gee, y'know,
if you're trying to set up a business don't ask us, ask your local
health board--and this group isn't for commercial endeavors."
B/
Brian Mailman
>
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> writes:
>
> > Then again, there's a greasy spot where that horse was so it really
> > isn't very productive to discuss this with you.
>
> Ken spends a lot of time in groups full of incredibly anal-retentive
> people who argue incessantly about this sort of thing. There's a reason
> why I dread RFDs that have anything to do with the rec.arts.comics.*
> hierarchy.
Yeah, I know--it's what I was referring to. Makes an interesting
meta-question though; this statement makes me wonder if certain topics
will attract people with certain personality traits or do these things
get established as the "cultural" standards of behavior and then
reinforced by negative selection?
B/
Russ Allbery
>> This is the statement with which I don't agree, which is why I don't
>> agree with the rest of your conclusions.
> The charter in the CFV applies if the newsgroup hasn't decided on
> another one.
You seem to be missing my opinion. Here it is more clearly:
There is, in general, no such thing as a charter in an unmoderated group
in the sense that you're using the term.
The fact that you read groups where there are lots of anal-retentive
people who refuse to deal with this fact and who harass you and others
about such things is a social problem within those groups, not a Usenet
administration problem.
I know exactly what rec.arts.comics.* is like. A large part of why I hold
the opinion that I do is because I've seen first-hand what that attitude
towards charters does and the damage that it causes. Thankfully, it is a
purely voluntary social decision to go along with it, and one can simply
choose to not play, at which point the people who obsess over charters
stop being some sort of force of law and simply become yet more annoying
people to put in one's killfile.
Longstanding groups, in my experience, develop a social "feel" which
guides the topic just fine without needing aggressive netcopping. For
every group that has a charter obsession and people who judge everything
against every line of the charter, and are therefore have frequent
flamewars over charters, I've seen ten where it's just not an issue.
Off-topic posts get politely redirected and then quietly ignored, and life
goes on while still allowing reasonable topic variation. See, for
example, news.software.nntp, which has no useful charter and frankly
doesn't need one.
It took me a long time to deprogram myself of the negative ideas about
charters that I picked up originally.
Charters are extremely useful for *moderated* groups to provide some sort
of written documentation and basis for moderation decisions. They're
considerably less useful for unmoderated groups, and are primarily useful,
IMO, as eludications on the group name if it's insufficient clear. In
other words, descriptive documentation, not proscriptive rules. (*Having*
that sort of documentation, particularly if it reflects long-standing
experience with what topics work well and which ones do not, can be quite
valuable, which is why I like the idea of a charter archive.)
wildstar
> Charters are extremely useful for *moderated* groups to provide some
> sort of written documentation and basis for moderation decisions.
> They're considerably less useful for unmoderated groups, and are
> primarily useful, IMO, as eludications on the group name if it's
> insufficient clear. In other words, descriptive documentation, not
> proscriptive rules. (*Having* that sort of documentation,
> particularly if it reflects long-standing experience with what topics
> work well and which ones do not, can be quite valuable, which is why I
> like the idea of a charter archive.)
>
Absolutely. Unmoderated NGs can have charters which are basically
Description of the NG. A one to two paragraph summarization of the FAQs.
Rules may not necassarily be part of the listing as rules are not set. A
Guideline listing yes. So having two fields. One stating NG guidelines
and another Rules. This is an optional field in moderated NGs and often
are set by the moderator. A reference to a moderator's Rule Sheet is an
option. Providing the moderator provides the NAN a copy of the rules to
go with the charter.
When developing an archive. You would want to store all file information
about the newsgroup in a Folder named (the newsgroup name). This would be
the RFD/CFV, Charter, Rules/Guideline files. This would be a useful
information resource about the newsgroups. Not a means of ruling. Each
newsgroup would have its own folder. Giving an organized information
resource. This may take a few years. A good place to start is by making a
folder name of all the known non-bogus Newsgroup.
Russ Allbery
> I'm not sure this is a distinction that makes any difference. If a lot
> of people use a charter as a set of rules, then a charter is defacto a
> set of rules, even if they're not supposed to use it as one.
That's not how I choose to live my life. I'm not sure what else I can say
about that.
> True, it only happens in some groups, but lots of problems are only
> problems in some groups.
The people who have that problem should perhaps figure out how to solve
it, then, without requiring people who don't have that problem to do the
work. I personally believe that it's a social problem and that creating
some mechanism to change charters will just amplify the social problem
even further, but if you disagree, which you're certainly entitled to do,
there certainly seem to be ways where you could set up a charter voting
scheme and get people to buy into it where they care greatly about
charters. Hell, rec.arts.comics.* already has some of its own voting and
internal politics; having its own official charter archive, as official as
things get in unmoderated groups at least, wouldn't be much of a stretch.
Scott Eiler
the robotic servitors of Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
rose up with the following chant:
>There is, in general, no such thing as a charter in an unmoderated group
>in the sense that you're using the term.
>
>The fact that you read groups where there are lots of anal-retentive
>people who refuse to deal with this fact and who harass you and others
>about such things is a social problem within those groups, not a Usenet
>administration problem.
I agree with your philosophy on charters for *most* groups. But then, in most
groups the topic is not *so* important that everyone must stick to it. For
example, I don't really mind if I run across some posts talking about the
X-Men movie, even if I'm reading a group dedicated to comic books (not movies)
that don't have "X" in the title.
But there *are* some groups where the topic is a bit more important. A lot of
groups in the alt.support.* hierarchy have such a high noise level that they
scare off people who actually need support on the topic... which is
especially a shame when it comes to medical or psychological topics like
cancer or depression. For groups like that, I think complaints to the
provider are in order for aggressively off-topic posts... and most providers
need evidence of a charter violation for that.
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------
"We have more than enough people in this world, so adding children to it is about as much of a contribution as donating a box of cereal to the Kellogg's company!" -- Bill, from the Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree.
Kai Henningsen
> In article <3ECFB45E...@sfo.com>,
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
> >Despite my interleaved comment, I can't wrap my head around what you're
> >saying above. I thought we were talking about the uselessness of
> >rechartering "unchartered" groups.
>
> Sorry, bit of a digression. I was responding to the general idea that there
> shouldn't be a way to make official charters.
Well, your arguments were rather convincing that there should, indeed, be
no such thing. The netcopping culture you describe seems a thing to avoid
at all costs.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
John David Galt
>>> This is the statement with which I don't agree, which is why I don't
>>> agree with the rest of your conclusions.
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@violet.rahul.net> writes:
>> The charter in the CFV applies if the newsgroup hasn't decided on
>> another one.
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> You seem to be missing my opinion. Here it is more clearly:
>
> There is, in general, no such thing as a charter in an unmoderated group
> in the sense that you're using the term.
>
> The fact that you read groups where there are lots of anal-retentive
> people who refuse to deal with this fact and who harass you and others
> about such things is a social problem within those groups, not a Usenet
> administration problem.
>
> I know exactly what rec.arts.comics.* is like. A large part of why I hold
> the opinion that I do is because I've seen first-hand what that attitude
> towards charters does and the damage that it causes. Thankfully, it is a
> purely voluntary social decision to go along with it, and one can simply
> choose to not play, at which point the people who obsess over charters
> stop being some sort of force of law and simply become yet more annoying
> people to put in one's killfile.
>
> Longstanding groups, in my experience, develop a social "feel" which
> guides the topic just fine without needing aggressive netcopping. For
> every group that has a charter obsession and people who judge everything
> against every line of the charter, and are therefore have frequent
> flamewars over charters, I've seen ten where it's just not an issue.
> Off-topic posts get politely redirected and then quietly ignored, and life
> goes on while still allowing reasonable topic variation. See, for
> example, news.software.nntp, which has no useful charter and frankly
> doesn't need one.
One sufficiently determined criminal vandal, such as "nucleus" here, can
destroy the "social feel" of any group and turn it into a complete shithole
if nothing is done to stop him. To the extent that people who hold your
view prevent such vandals from being netcopped and their accounts deleted
or at least their posts getting canceled, _you_ are the reason that Usenet
is going to hell.
Fortunately, most of the newsgroups I use have strong majorities who feel
that the charter does matter. And many of them are tolerant of cancels to
enforce that charter. Those may wind up being the only unmoderated groups
that remain usable after the "HipCriminals" find them.
Russ Allbery
> One sufficiently determined criminal vandal, such as "nucleus" here, can
> destroy the "social feel" of any group and turn it into a complete
> shithole if nothing is done to stop him.
I beg to differ. No one is doing anything (effective) to stop him, either
here or in the other groups that he posts to from time to time, and the
social feel of those groups is entirely intact. He's easily ignorable and
causes little damage.
> To the extent that people who hold your view prevent such vandals from
> being netcopped and their accounts deleted or at least their posts
> getting canceled, _you_ are the reason that Usenet is going to hell.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I've yet to participate
in a group with a serious social problem where that problem has not been
largely caused by the reaction *within* the group, by regulars who are
unwilling to ignore people. And I've participated in many groups that
have easily handled similar provocaction without even so much as a
noticable temporary disruption, just by being careful about which threads
one chooses to continue and help thrive.
I can certainly believe that my experience is not universal and there
exist counter-examples, but it will be significantly more difficult to
convince me that my experience is not *typical*.
> Fortunately, most of the newsgroups I use have strong majorities who
> feel that the charter does matter. And many of them are tolerant of
> cancels to enforce that charter. Those may wind up being the only
> unmoderated groups that remain usable after the "HipCriminals" find
> them.
This sort of use of cancels will probably eventually convince me to stop
honoring them entirely.
ba...@dmcom.net
> When developing an archive. You would want to store all file information
> about the newsgroup in a Folder named (the newsgroup name). This would be
> the RFD/CFV, Charter, Rules/Guideline files.
Do you mean something like this
ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/ ?
This would be a useful
> information resource about the newsgroups. Not a means of ruling. Each
> newsgroup would have its own folder. Giving an organized information
> resource. This may take a few years. A good place to start is by making a
> folder name of all the known non-bogus Newsgroup.
Of course the idea of updating any group is still a problem. UVV might
be a way to go, however I suspect that there are not enough willing to
handle charter changes votes.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
wildstar
> wildstar wrote:
>
> Do you mean something like this
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/ ?
Yes, that comes very much close to thoughts. Look below for more vision
clarity: (You got a good base)
> Of course the idea of updating any group is still a problem. UVV
> might be a way to go, however I suspect that there are not enough
> willing to handle charter changes votes.
>
>
Very, useful. Having a root folder named Charters and within them
containing folders with the name of the newsgroup and within each of
those folders containing the charter. It would also be helpful if all the
files for each newsgroup be in that those individual folders and a root
be named Newsgroups instead of Charters and a folder named charters
inside each of the folders inside the 'Newsgroups' folder.
Example:..\Newsgroups\comp.ai\charters\charter.txt
..\Newsgroups\comp.ai\moderators\moderator-info.txt
..\Newsgroups\comp.ai\rules\rules.txt
Mainly for information resource. ISPs can use them for info.
Would this be for giving NAN 'power'? Depends on your definition.
Control over the newsgroups - NO !!!! As a central standard 'official'
source for info regarding newsgroups and giving the ISP the most current
info possible. Power as a information resource. Yeah. ISP with NSs can
benefit having a central source to get the info they need. NANs don't
have the power to deal with users. The power lies with the moderator of
the newsgroup itself and/or ISP (when dealing with complaints about a
user). If an ISP receives complaint. The procedure should include a
verification check of the newsgroup itself. Certain verification would be
checking if the NG is moderated or not. This is something the NANs should
have or know. This would be for getting information necassary for the
ISPs to do their things when dealing with abuse complaints. There are
other uses of the info that I will not cover in this post but is there.
Mirrors of this info can be made.
wildstar
> John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
> I beg to differ. No one is doing anything (effective) to stop him,
> either here or in the other groups that he posts to from time to time,
> and the social feel of those groups is entirely intact. He's easily
> ignorable and causes little damage.
>
<<< snip >>>
*plonk* file nuc_leus.
(Kill filter him)
That is the way. Put him in your block sender list or whatever your
newsreader calls it. Treat him like a spammer. Tell it to everyone in the
newsgroup. We done it at comp.ai.philosophy. He is just noise.
wildstar
news:3ED1597F...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us:
> One sufficiently determined criminal vandal, such as "nucleus" here,
> can destroy the "social feel" of any group and turn it into a complete
> shithole if nothing is done to stop him. To the extent that people
> who hold your view prevent such vandals from being netcopped and their
> accounts deleted or at least their posts getting canceled, _you_ are
> the reason that Usenet is going to hell.
>
> Fortunately, most of the newsgroups I use have strong majorities who
> feel that the charter does matter. And many of them are tolerant of
> cancels to enforce that charter. Those may wind up being the only
> unmoderated groups that remain usable after the "HipCriminals" find
> them.
>
Find out his ISP provider and send a complaint to them. Tell the rest.
Contact his ISP's abuse department. If that can be done, it will hinder
him. Secondly killfilter him (put him in your killfilter/*plonk* file
list/ block sender list or whatever your newsgroups reader calls it).
This will essentially kick him out of your reading.
(Hint: Check his IP address. Certain numbers will remain constant. The
last two sets may change. Follow this scheme. xxx.xxx.yyy.yyy (Usually
xxx.xxx will remain the same on a dial up ISP. One a broadband -
xxx.xxx.xxx.yyy (xxx.xxx.xxx will remain the same and yyy will remain the
same for awhile but periodically changes over time. 90 days usually.
Replace the xs and ys with integer numbers. Each set can range from 0-
255. The first two sets identifies the service provider, usually.
Joe Bernstein
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
>
> > One sufficiently determined criminal vandal, such as "nucleus" here,
> > can destroy the "social feel" of any group and turn it into a complete
> > shithole if nothing is done to stop him.
>
> I beg to differ. No one is doing anything (effective) to stop him,
> either here or in the other groups that he posts to from time to time,
> and the social feel of those groups is entirely intact. He's easily
> ignorable and causes little damage.
Um, this isn't my take on it *at all*.
I tend to think that he's a major part of the reason there have been
fewer newsgroup proposals in the Big 8 for the last several years.
news.groups has been a standing advertisement for Web forums. "Look
what the pros have to deal with when they use Usenet! Surely it'll
be even worse for us!"
Maybe this is because I'm accustomed to making snap judgements about
newsgroups. I don't read them for three months before deciding
whether they were worth my time; I look at the subject lines for
a fairly short period and assess whether there's anyone home. If
enough of those subject lines are kook-generated, the group's
unlikely to be worth my time. Just as with a web page that produces
too many pop-up ads or cookies, or a web forum that only has new
messages every few months.
First impressions *matter*. The fact that a newsgroup isn't a
physical object that you can look at - is it wearing sneakers with
holes in them? is it clean? - doesn't change that.
(In addition, a lot of people use newsreaders that don't enable
you to killfile in such a way that you don't waste a lot of online
time on the killfilee anyway. You may not think such newsreaders
are worth anything, but regardless, those people exist, and have
as much right to participate in RFDs as anyone else does. Note
that a lot of people these days post from *Google*. I don't know
if you saw much of Google's version of news.groups during Bloxy's
reign, but I did, and it wasn't pretty.)
You're on record as thinking that part of the reason news.groups
isn't as pleasant a place to be these days as it sometimes has
been is that we don't have as much to do as we should. If I'm
right about Bloxy's being part of the reason for *that*, then
he's had a quite significant effect on the "social feel" of the
group, even for people who killfile him religiously.
I have no argument with your claim that kook-fighters and -taunters
cause more actual damage, in most cases, than do kooks themselves,
but Bloxy's is an *extremely* bad example of this, given that he
*did* render this group largely unreadable for years *without* anyone
fighting or taunting him. As it happens, the groups I'm familiar
with that have taken the worst damage from prolonged troll-feeding
seem to be recovering now. So I don't share John David Galt's
pessimism. But I also don't share your optimism, because my take
on the effect Bloxy's has had hereabouts is utterly different
from yours, and I'm not convinced there won't be more like him,
over time.
wildstar
@reader1.panix.com:
> Um, this isn't my take on it *at all*.
>
> I tend to think that he's a major part of the reason there have been
> fewer newsgroup proposals in the Big 8 for the last several years.
> news.groups has been a standing advertisement for Web forums. "Look
> what the pros have to deal with when they use Usenet! Surely it'll
> be even worse for us!"
>
> Maybe this is because I'm accustomed to making snap judgements about
> newsgroups. I don't read them for three months before deciding
> whether they were worth my time; I look at the subject lines for
> a fairly short period and assess whether there's anyone home. If
> enough of those subject lines are kook-generated, the group's
> unlikely to be worth my time. Just as with a web page that produces
> too many pop-up ads or cookies, or a web forum that only has new
> messages every few months.
<<< Snip >>>
What I really like to do with them would be to block his IP Address/MAC
Address and his email. This way, he will be blocked no matter what his
email is. A dial-up will be a challenge though. Since that is modem. So
it may be a block on that local cluster.
If the ISP wishes to not be blackballed then they will need to terminate
the service to that user.
Jim Riley
wrote:
> The admins held copies of the charters and this was fairly
> administrated like any other networks.
Could you provide a translation of this sentence?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Then we should sort of require that all newsgroups whos charter is prior
>to a certain year to update the charter to fit with the scope of modern
>policies on charters. Simply enough a one liner is simple. Discussion of
>Commodore 8-Bit computers is clear. Anything else will be consider off-
>topic. Even a one-liner that is explicit in its wording is clear. Off-
>topic is spamming or trolling. There is ways to manage that. Bogus
>newsgroups do not apply and require an appropriate RFD/CFV or be deleted.
We should change the format of RFD and CFV to remove the section
titled "charter". Too many people interpret it as "constitutional
framework for the newsgroup" rather than "what's discussed in the
newsgroup".
--
Jim Riley
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>We should change the format of RFD and CFV to remove the section
>titled "charter". Too many people interpret it as "constitutional
>framework for the newsgroup" rather than "what's discussed in the
>newsgroup".
That's sort of a good idea. I think it would be better to just
rename the section, though, rather than outright removing it.
There is still a need to outline the intended topic space. Or,
perhaps you were thinking along the line of merging that with
the RATIONALE as some proponents are wont to do. I'd still like
to delineate the two functions.
wildstar
@slb4.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> Could you provide a translation of this sentence?
>
In the early days of USENET, networks where smaller in number of
computers and news servers were located at various university throughout
the nation and world which where still within the easy managability to
receive charters and held them at a server like log files for each news
servers.
As the NGs where created a charter is formed and those are kept and
archived by the admins. There was a head admin who essentially held the
master archive and did the call for creation of a newsgroup at the news
servers. This was following a success in the CFV (Votetaking process)
based on a standard process. Since the individual admins at the NS did
not want to spend the time to create NGs unless it is going to be used.
The policies were made with the CFV. Since the admins running the NS
where often the admin of the whole entire network at the
college/university which they where at. As I wrote above, these NSs where
at the colleges. These colleges had their own local area network systems
of those days. The NSs where connected to other NSs at the other
locations. This was fairly simple. All these networks used the same
pipelines as the rest of the servers they used to transfer packets.
USENET was a virtual underlying network within a physical network
infrastructure.
As they expand, things became more sophisticated.
Brian Mailman
>
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >We should change the format of RFD and CFV to remove the section
> >titled "charter". Too many people interpret it as "constitutional
> >framework for the newsgroup" rather than "what's discussed in the
> >newsgroup".
>
> That's sort of a good idea. I think it would be better to just
> rename the section, though, rather than outright removing it.
> There is still a need to outline the intended topic space.
"Focus of Topic Space:"?
"Original Intention of Topic Space:" ??
B/
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> In article <baut54$hbi$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >We should change the format of RFD and CFV to remove the section
> >titled "charter". Too many people interpret it as "constitutional
> >framework for the newsgroup" rather than "what's discussed in the
> >newsgroup".
>
> a charter is and what it isn't?
> --
That is an idea, perhaps perhaps change "Another way to learn what a
group
topic is would be to read its charter" to "Another way to learn about
founding topic is would be to read its charter"
Kathy Morgan
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >
> > How about adding a section to the general newsgroup FAQs describing what
> > a charter is and what it isn't?
>
> That is an idea, perhaps perhaps change "Another way to learn what a
> group
> topic is would be to read its charter" to "Another way to learn about
> founding topic is would be to read its charter"
I like the second wording.
--
Kathy
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In the early days of USENET, networks where smaller in number of
>computers and news servers were located at various university throughout
>the nation and world which where still within the easy managability to
>receive charters and held them at a server like log files for each news
>servers.
Was this before or after this suggestion (from 1990)?
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/other.articles/newgroup-charters
--
Jim Riley
wildstar
> Was this before or after this suggestion (from 1990)?
>
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/other.articles/new
> group-charters
>
That was not quite what I was refering to. The files of the charters are
sent to each news server site via network interconnection (say via FTP or
something similar) so the admins can create newsgroups accordingly. A
email is another method. The UVV (or earlier incarnations) have
connection methods to the admins at each of the news server sites. A
central place had the info required to form a newsgroup and its
description and charters. Charters were present as it was a requirement
during newsgroup creation especially since the "Great Renaming". All
prior existing newsgroups with the older naming system were required to
make a charter. Most of them consist mostly of the same info as before.
All newsgroups created since then were required to make a charter. All
moderated newsgroups were required to have the name of the moderator.
Remember charters were not sent in every message. It was generally stored
on old tapes and storage medias to have a record keeping. It was as
simple as having the messages recorded onto the NAN machines. Since
networks (including the NewServers) where often configured with central
servers and a common central storage locations at that time.
It would not make sense to send the charters/RFDs/CFVs to just the NSs.
The individual in charge would take the info and back it up at their
servers for evaluation. Look, I have the full capability myself with my
meer PC to take a charter message sent to me and store it at my computer
and send it to a central server and a message. Set a policy with the
admins at the regional news server sites to gather the info they need at
the central server. Remember the physical network and each site contains
a File Server/News Server/Email Server and a central Network site server.
Since a news server was a sub server and used the same physical network
structure used by the Email & File Server. A common network. USENET was a
virtual network inside an existing larger physical network. Why dedicate
a trunk line to just one purpose server if it has enough bandwidth to be
used by multiple servers.
So get the idea of the older networks. Sound similar to todays networks
doesn't it. In words, yes. In technology it has generally improved but
very similar as it was since the 1960s. Going to a central location to
gather info about how a new newsgroup make life easier for NS sites. It
would with ISPs too. Since an ISP has their own NSs inside them and have
admins. Most of them are Linux servers boxes and the admins generally
control all aspects of the network server box. Todays servers are often
several servers in one box now. :-)
All they need to have is INN, C NEWS and Leafnode+. Though it is often a
method on USENET to use a method of "flooding". This is the method
commonly used to retrieve messages. But, a place for holding
charters/RFDs/CFVs, after the charter has been posted on USENET, needs to
be static and centralized after the messages are received and the UVV
would receive the messages and then right away put it the info and all at
their central server. Then a message is sent out to all the Newsservers.
With Linux, that is quite a simple task. I would only need to have the
info fed to my system. I as an admin would perfer a central official site
location to go to. A good heiarchial directory system would be welcomed.
It can't be worse then my HD. With 200,000+ files and directories. Most
network admins have broadband service anyway. So to setup this properly
again. A stable domain hosted website/FTP site would be nice.
For example, I am putting together a Linux box and a C-One. The Linux Box
will serve well. Containing local newsgroup service power. Collecting
over the internet and feeding locally at 100 Mbps speed.
Jim Riley
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <baut54$hbi$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>We should change the format of RFD and CFV to remove the section
>>titled "charter". Too many people interpret it as "constitutional
>>framework for the newsgroup" rather than "what's discussed in the
>>newsgroup".
>
>How about adding a section to the general newsgroup FAQs describing what
>a charter is and what it isn't?
A charter isn't.
--
Jim Riley