uk.alt.* vs alt.uk* (Was: No place for uk.* Digitiser group??
Dave Mayall
Brian Edmonds wrote:
>
> Jonathan Grobe <grobe> writes:
> > On the other hand doesn't the control for the uk.* hierarchy sends out
> > checkgroups messages for the hierarchy? What criteria should he use to
> > decide what uk.alt.* groups to include?
>
> No idea. If I were looking to start such a beast, I'd start by checking
> with the maintainers of de.alt.* and no.alt.*, since it appears they
> have some experience in the area.
This keeps coming up, with alarming regularity. On each occasion nothing
comes of it.
uk.* has rules, which uk.alt.* couldn't work with.
If people want an alt type hierarchy for the UK, then I have no
objection,
but it can't go under uk.* without damaging that hierarchy.
If you want a UK specific alt, use a hyphen. uk-alt.* or alt-uk.*
--
Dave Mayall
The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer
Private e-mail to david....@ukonline.co.uk please
Thomas Lee
>Brian Edmonds wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Grobe <grobe> writes:
>> > On the other hand doesn't the control for the uk.* hierarchy sends out
>> > checkgroups messages for the hierarchy? What criteria should he use to
>> > decide what uk.alt.* groups to include?
>>
>> No idea. If I were looking to start such a beast, I'd start by checking
>> with the maintainers of de.alt.* and no.alt.*, since it appears they
>> have some experience in the area.
>
>This keeps coming up, with alarming regularity. On each occasion nothing
>comes of it.
>
>uk.* has rules, which uk.alt.* couldn't work with.
There is no uk.alt. There is no need for uk.alt. Please stop giving
folks the idea that there will be! :-)
>If people want an alt type hierarchy for the UK, then I have no
>objection,
>but it can't go under uk.* without damaging that hierarchy.
I guess I don't know why a uk.alt hierarchy is even considered. If you
want a group, just propose it. If you want to join the sewer, use
alt.*
>If you want a UK specific alt, use a hyphen. uk-alt.* or alt-uk.*
Excellent idea - that will get virtuall NO propogation. :-)
Thomas
Dave Mayall
On Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:29:40 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee) wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:05:52 +0000, Dave Mayall
><may...@it.postoffice.co.uk> wrote:
>>uk.* has rules, which uk.alt.* couldn't work with.
>
>There is no uk.alt. There is no need for uk.alt. Please stop giving
>folks the idea that there will be! :-)
I'm not, I'm pointing out why there shouldn't be.
>>If people want an alt type hierarchy for the UK, then I have no
>>objection,
>>but it can't go under uk.* without damaging that hierarchy.
>
>I guess I don't know why a uk.alt hierarchy is even considered. If you
>want a group, just propose it. If you want to join the sewer, use
>alt.*
Sounds fine to me, but alt.config regulars keep sending UK specific
alt.* proposals here, so it's going to keep coming up.
>>If you want a UK specific alt, use a hyphen. uk-alt.* or alt-uk.*
>
>Excellent idea - that will get virtuall NO propogation. :-)
Quite, but that would be an SEP wouldn't it :-)
I suggest that we persuade the big ISPs to accept a newgroup for
alt-uk.config, then we have somewhere to send all the "I want a UK
equivalent of alt.*" people. They will have to convince the ISPs to
accept future newgroups ;-)
--
Dave Mayall
Thomas Lee
>Sounds fine to me, but alt.config regulars keep sending UK specific
>alt.* proposals here, so it's going to keep coming up.
Possibly some posters really do want to create a real newsgroup and
hence uk.* is appropriate. These folks are more than welcome here.
The rest can just head back to the alt.* sewer.
>>Excellent idea - that will get virtuall NO propogation. :-)
>
>Quite, but that would be an SEP wouldn't it :-)
Don't know - uk-alt.I.am.clever deserves the propogation it gets...
>I suggest that we persuade the big ISPs to accept a newgroup for
>alt-uk.config, then we have somewhere to send all the "I want a UK
>equivalent of alt.*" people. They will have to convince the ISPs to
>accept future newgroups ;-)
Why? Why do we need a uk-alt.* at all?
Thomas
Dave Mayall
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 19:39:51 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee) wrote:
>Why? Why do we need a uk-alt.* at all?
I don't, or rather I have no *direct* need of it, having it would give
us a place to send the "we want a silly group" crowd.
And if we do have it, alt-uk.* emphasises the alt bit over the uk bit.
--
Dave Mayall
Dave Williams
[Followups overridden. If you want a flamewar, do it on someone elses' time]
In uk.net.news.management Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Why are you so nasty about alt.* the whole time? Are you a user of any
: alt.* groups or not? Has the existence of alt.* ever done any harm either
: to yourself or anybody you know?
Actually, yes. If we're being pedantic, the 'leeto idiots that
regularly issue newgroup control messages which (when honoured by
a server) break peoples' news clients waste those peoples' time,
the time of the support or admin people who have to deal with
puzzled customers, and the time of the news admins who have to tidy
up afterwards, and the number of bogus alt groups floating around
which carry nothing but spam add to the resources needed to maintain
a full spool. Depending on how literal your interpretation of the
word 'hurt' is, these things 'hurt' people.
These kind of things occur on a regular basis because of the very
model of newgroup/rmgroup creation that you are used to seeing
under alt. Of course, as a user, you don't see the knockon effects.
[Of course, you could argue that if every news admin in the world
followed alt.config and only honoured newgroups/rmgroups from some
of the people in there, alt would be a much tidier place - but then,
it wouldn't _quite_ be the alt of old, and people wouldn't find it
quite so easy to create any ol' thing, would they? Of course,
extending this to uk-alt.* (which is where we came into this
discussion) you then arrive at the point where you might as well
stick with uk.* and the whole discussion becomes rather
pointless, but there we go. Of course, where every aforementioned
newsadmin is going to get the time is another matter...]
: alt.* is a thriving part of newsspace that works excellently.
alt is a sewer. By design.
: Besides, surely you must be aware that it is up to ISPs to decide which
: newsgroups to add to their newsfiles.
: Your 'alt.* is a sewer' line is becoming very tiresome.
alt.* is a sewer - in controlled namespace terms at least, if not
in terms of content. The efforts of the people who still hang around
in alt.config and attempt to give namespace advise or moderate the
flow of sewage somewhat are to be admired (if purely from a
masochistic point of view) but they've been contending with everyone
from the likes of Bruce Becker, to Tom Servo, to idiotic University
students (some of whom got a clue eventually[1]) for a long time.
D.
[1] I did, anyway. Not before creating at least one aberration which
should've been blown off most newsspools a long time ago ; but
then there was alt.drwho.creative as well (coo, it got a mention
in the front of a novel not long ago), so I feel a bit less guilty.
--
Dave Williams
Newsmaster, Demon Internet Ltd.
Andy Mabbett
In article <887624896.1685.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave
Williams <da...@demon.net> writes
>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management
You post (and this one!) breach the new charters by being cross- posted.
To which groups should follow- ups be set for exsiting threads such as
this one? Should we informally allow cross-posting for such threads,
only imposing the relevant charter rule for new threads?
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham ASSIST
Birmingham City Council - www.birmingham.gov.uk
Phone: (+) 44 121 303 3640 - Fax: (+) 44 121 233 9702
Post: 3rd Floor, Central Library, Birmingham B3 3HQ
Dave Williams
In uk.net.news.management Andy Mabbett
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <887624896.1685.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave
: You post (and this one!) breach the new charters by being cross- posted.
Oops. So they do (apologies, folks) ; to some degree I'm actually
quite interested in seeing how often this one is going to occur.
Oh well.
: To which groups should follow- ups be set for exsiting threads such as
: this one? Should we informally allow cross-posting for such threads,
: only imposing the relevant charter rule for new threads?
Well, I've directed followups to uk.n.n.m. (now that someone's poked
my memory on the subject). Managing the use of the group is as on
topic there as anything else is, I guess. :)
D.
--
Dave Williams
da...@demon.net
Darren Meldrum
Andy Mabbett wrote on Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:54:19 +0000:
(Note follow-ups)
>In article <887624896.1685.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave
>Williams <da...@demon.net> writes
>>Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management
>
>You post (and this one!) breach the new charters by being cross- posted.
>
>To which groups should follow- ups be set for exsiting threads such as
>this one? Should we informally allow cross-posting for such threads,
>only imposing the relevant charter rule for new threads?
Existing RFD threads should remain in the group where they were created
until a new RFD has been issued. This is to ensure that there is a
definitive record of the debate in one group alone.
Non-RFD threads should be in one or other groups but not both. A cross-post
will be tolerated if the aim is to transfer the thread from one group to
the other, but follow-ups must point to only one group.
Thomas Lee was the first to cross=post this thread, and he did not set
follow-ups. I therefore cannot determine whether he intended to transfer
the thread or simply wanted a cross-posted discussion. If the former, then
he should be more careful next time. If the latter, then he has missed the
point of the new group.
It will take a while for things to settle down and for the new group to
propagate. I think common sense and patience are the required attributes.
Persistent offenders will get polite reminders from myself.
--
Darren Meldrum (dar...@meldrum.co.uk)
Dave Williams
In uk.net.news.management article <hilde-16029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > Actually, yes. If we're being pedantic, the 'leeto idiots that
: > regularly issue newgroup control messages which (when honoured by
: > a server) break peoples' news clients waste those peoples' time,
: > the time of the support or admin people who have to deal with
: > puzzled customers, and the time of the news admins who have to tidy
: > up afterwards,
: Your ISP chooses to take alt.* on automatic. You can't have it both ways.
Obviously cut out for a career in technical support - the average
user isn't going to realise what the implications of operating in this
kind of environment are. That's reality - three years ago, even, the
average person signing up for a 'full feed' would have been much more
aware, technically, of what this kind of thing would mean.
: You say you're being pedantic, but you're not. I asked has the EXISTENCE
: of alt.* caused harm.
... and the answer is that if you regard the unmanaged hierarchy of then
which has now grown into what is has as having caused harm, then yes -
by it's very nature it has. It's also caused some good as well.
: >and the number of bogus alt groups floating around
: > which carry nothing but spam add to the resources needed to maintain
: > a full spool. Depending on how literal your interpretation of the
: > word 'hurt' is, these things 'hurt' people.
: > These kind of things occur on a regular basis because of the very
: > model of newgroup/rmgroup creation that you are used to seeing
: > under alt. Of course, as a user, you don't see the knockon effects.
: Are Demon's profits down or something?
Nope. If this was a serious concern to Demon itself, we'd hardly still
be carrying alt. This doesn't mean it's not of concern to the wider
community. Insert various comments on broken propagation of newsgroups,
the support issues involved, and so on. Better phrased, I should say
that as a user you are unlikely to see the knock-on effects. That
doesn't mean nobody else is going to.
: > [Of course, you could argue that if every news admin in the world
: > followed alt.config and only honoured newgroups/rmgroups from some
: > of the people in there, alt would be a much tidier place - but then,
: > it wouldn't _quite_ be the alt of old, and people wouldn't find it
: > quite so easy to create any ol' thing, would they?
: I PAY Demon for a service which includes honouring all alt.* 'create
: group' messages. If you stopped, you should cut your charges.
You pay Demon (contractually) for no such thing - I refer you to
the terms and conditions of the news service that you're running.
: > Of course,
: > extending this to uk-alt.* (which is where we came into this
: > discussion) you then arrive at the point where you might as well
: > stick with uk.* and the whole discussion becomes rather
: > pointless, but there we go. Of course, where every aforementioned
: > newsadmin is going to get the time is another matter...]
: Maybe best posted somewhere internal to the company?
Again, you're thinking in local terms. In fact, you've reduced just
about every statement made here to a local issue. It isn't. News
does not work that way.
: > : alt.* is a thriving part of newsspace that works excellently.
: >
: > alt is a sewer. By design.
: Well then you're making money from letting people have access to all the
: turds floating down it. What does that make you?
Supplying something which costs _us_ relatively little, for which there
is some demonstrated demand amongst the customer-base, and which saves
us some external bandwidth? (Extend your logic a little further there,
and ask yourself what that makes you, if you really want to start slipping
towards flamage).
: > alt.* is a sewer - in controlled namespace terms at least, if not
: > in terms of content.
: Oh sorry - didn't realise that 'sewer' was a technical term.
In this case, I thought it was a metaphor. Must be slipping towards
senility.
D.
Jonathan Grobe
In article <887647050.18528.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave Williams wrote:
>In uk.net.news.management article <hilde-16029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
>Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: You say you're being pedantic, but you're not. I asked has the EXISTENCE
>: of alt.* caused harm.
>
>... and the answer is that if you regard the unmanaged hierarchy of then
>which has now grown into what is has as having caused harm, then yes -
>by it's very nature it has. It's also caused some good as well.
>
The higher the requirements to create a group in a hierarchy:
1. The fewer the joke/poor quality groups created.
2. The larger the number of what would be useful groups are not created.
So you have a tradeoff between the two. The Big 8 has clearly set a
requirement level so high that:
1. A significant number of groups are being rejected that would be
useful groups (the failure rate on Big 8 votes has gone up from about
20% in 1995 to close to 50% in 1997)
2. Because of the high requirements lots of desirable groups never
ever get proposed.
[And note that with the Big 8 requirements, there will be an increasing
amount of dead wood--such as groups on computer hardware/software that no
one uses anymore--that no one is ever going to propose RFDs on to
remove--and that wouldn't pass it they did]
Look at groups (which I have created) like:
alt.autos.ford
alt.med.veterinary
alt.religion.bahai
These are viable active groups--but they all failed the corresponding
Big 8 votes.
Then there are large numbers of groups which might well have passed a
Big 8 group, but that no one thought it worth their trouble to try
to pass--a group like alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, a group
I created about a year ago and now has 250 or so posts per day.
My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
seems interested.
--
Jonathan Grobe
For millions of used, out-of-print and collectable books try:
Advanced Book exchange: <http://www.abebooks.com>
Thomas Lee
>Why are you so nasty about alt.* the whole time?
Because the vast majority of it is a waste of space. I can, for
example, see no good reason for the warez groups. Do you condone
sofware piracy? And they are, seeminly, a spam trap.
>Are you a user of any
>alt.* groups or not?
I have been - but got tired of all the crap - we migrated
alt.computer.consultants and the results were outstanding.
>Has the existence of alt.* ever done any harm either
>to yourself or anybody you know?
Only to the extent that the volume means my ISp has trouble keeping
up.
>alt.* is a thriving part of newsspace that works excellently.
Some of it - yes, but it is also a large resource drain.
>Besides, surely you must be aware that it is up to ISPs to decide which
>newsgroups to add to their newsfiles.
>
>Your 'alt.* is a sewer' line is becoming very tiresome.
you are entittled to your view neil.
Thomas Lee
On 16 Feb 1998 19:03:34 GMT, grobe...@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe)
wrote:
>In article <887647050.18528.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave Williams wrote:
>>In uk.net.news.management article <hilde-16029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
>>Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>: You say you're being pedantic, but you're not. I asked has the EXISTENCE
>>: of alt.* caused harm.
>>
>>... and the answer is that if you regard the unmanaged hierarchy of then
>>which has now grown into what is has as having caused harm, then yes -
>>by it's very nature it has. It's also caused some good as well.
>>
>The good is substantially greater than the harm.
That definately depends on your point of view. In that the unbridled
growth of alt.* has caused outages on new servers - I regard that as
bad. In that there are an awful lot of rubbish groups, etc and large
numbers of control messages that need managing, this is bad. But yes
there are some great and highly useful groups. Of late, the value is
less than clear.
>The higher the requirements to create a group in a hierarchy:
>1. The fewer the joke/poor quality groups created.
>2. The larger the number of what would be useful groups are not created.
And there is a balance to be struck. Clearly we want to encourage
useful groups and discurage the rest.
>So you have a tradeoff between the two. The Big 8 has clearly set a
>requirement level so high that:
>1. A significant number of groups are being rejected that would be
>useful groups (the failure rate on Big 8 votes has gone up from about
>20% in 1995 to close to 50% in 1997)
>2. Because of the high requirements lots of desirable groups never
>ever get proposed.
IMHO, the big-8 level is too high, but that's very much a subjective
thing.
>Look at groups (which I have created) like:
>alt.autos.ford
>alt.med.veterinary
>alt.religion.bahai
>These are viable active groups--but they all failed the corresponding
>Big 8 votes.
Depending on the nature of the charger, they would probably have all
passed uk.*, possibly on fast track (although there might have been
some changes needed to the specific names to accord to out emerging
namespace tree).
>My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
>position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
>Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
>in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
>seems interested.
UK.* strikes that balance, in my view. Virtually any useful group
that has been seriously proposed in the last couple of years had been
adopted, even when subsequently it proves they are not all that
useful. And some of those which have turned out to be dormant have
been rmgrouped.
We do not need a uk-alt/alt-uk/alt.uk/uk.alt.
Thomas
Thomas Lee
If we need it at all, why not have alt.uk.* ?
At least that way, it _might_ get some propogation. Or is the idea
that all groups DONT get propogation?
Thomas
Thomas Lee
>I PAY Demon for a service which includes honouring all alt.* 'create
>group' messages.
Er - since when does your contract with demon suggest that?
Thomas
Thomas Lee
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:19:56 +0000,
hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk (Hilde) wrote:
>It doesn't. I was referring to one of my reasons for signing it! :-)
Quite.
I don't know if aDe lovett still produces the stats on demon's news
feed - but if so, go have a look. You'll see just how much of the new
spool is alt. Then guess just how much of that spool is really of use
to virtually all of demons customer base. Then work out what it costs
to maintain all those servers, not to mention the cost of the
bandwidth to receive and re-transmit the spool. Non trivial.
Thomas
Onno Hovers
In alt.config Jonathan Grobe <grobe...@netins.net> wrote:
> In article <887647050.18528.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave Williams wrote:
>>In uk.net.news.management article <hilde-16029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
>>Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>: You say you're being pedantic, but you're not. I asked has the EXISTENCE
>>: of alt.* caused harm.
>>
>>... and the answer is that if you regard the unmanaged hierarchy of then
>>which has now grown into what is has as having caused harm, then yes -
>>by it's very nature it has. It's also caused some good as well.
>>
> The good is substantially greater than the harm.
> The higher the requirements to create a group in a hierarchy:
> 1. The fewer the joke/poor quality groups created.
> 2. The larger the number of what would be useful groups are not created.
> So you have a tradeoff between the two. The Big 8 has clearly set a
> requirement level so high that:
> [....]
> My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
> position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
> Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
> in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
> seems interested.
I do not think that there is much merit in an intermediate policy
if the only motivation is to have less joke/poor groups. Why would
creating more groups help us get less groups?
Maybe it is time to create a list of _non-crap_ alt groups.
Just by looking at the traffic the list of alt.* groups
can be drastically reduced to something like 2000 to 4000
groups.
Regards, Onno
--
< >-> Onno Hovers (on...@stack.nl http://www.stack.nl/~onno/)
Student physics at the University of Technology Eindhoven
No, I do not want ANY unsollicited bulk e-mail
Henrietta Thomas
In news.admin.hierarchies on Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:16:29 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk
(Thomas Lee) wrote:
>On 16 Feb 1998 19:03:34 GMT, grobe...@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe)
>wrote:
[snip]....
>>My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
>>position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
>>Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
>>in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
>>seems interested.
>
>UK.* strikes that balance, in my view. Virtually any useful group
>that has been seriously proposed in the last couple of years had been
>adopted, even when subsequently it proves they are not all that
>useful. And some of those which have turned out to be dormant have
>been rmgrouped.
>
>We do not need a uk-alt/alt-uk/alt.uk/uk.alt.
I agree with Thomas:
a) Regional hierarchies, in general, do not need to have alt.*, too.
b) The uk.* committee system is working fairly well, and they _do_
have provisions for removing dead groups and for amending
charters. I have followed a number of their discussions.
c) I hope to do something similar with the us.* hierarchy. Note
that I want to use Newsgroup Hosts as newsgroup monitors to
hopefully avoid excessive moderation, and that the basic plan
includes an annual review of each group to see if any changes
need to be made.
If there is anything I haven't done that you think needs doing,
please let me know. If it wasn't for you, there wouldn't be much
of a movement to revive us.*.
Your criticism of Big 8 is well founded. It was a good idea in the
beginning, but now it is time for change. Trouble is, nobody wants
to take the first step, and anything they try to do will be so steeped
in politics, it will make the first defeat of us.* look like a tea party.
Alt.* was also a good idea at the time, but it has now grown into
7-8,000 groups, many of little or no value. The good groups suffer
because they're stuck there with all the joke/vanity groups. Reform
is badly needed, but as with Big 8, nobody wants to take the first
step.
The alternative to Big 8 is supposed to be net.*. The alternative
to alt.* is supposed to be mod.*. But these are long term dreams
and nothing will be done to cure whatever ails Big 8 and alt.*. :-(
Henrietta Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
Business: usa...@wwa.com
Personal: h...@wwa.com
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Jonathan Grobe is:
~ My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
~ position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
~ Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
~ in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
~ seems interested.
Oh, I don't know - in uk.* we have bent over backwards to try to attain
a happy medium between the 2 extremes !
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOi/OEdRFO5sC2Q6EQKQ6wCgyhSuuondL/mNi+Z/2SJBKUhn8+8AnRJ3
pRE+eyEl2Kuyd/Ab2BJzMzs/
=jwlH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"When a woman dresses as a man, nobody laughs, because she's seen as trying
to better herself. When a man dresses as a woman, people laugh, because he's
seen as lowering himself" - Quentin Crisp
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Henrietta Thomas
is:
~ Your criticism of Big 8 is well founded. It was a good idea in the
~ beginning, but now it is time for change. Trouble is, nobody wants
~ to take the first step, and anything they try to do will be so steeped
~ in politics, it will make the first defeat of us.* look like a tea party.
Chuck all the tea in the harbour, for all I care...
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOlM6UdRFO5sC2Q6EQJ0hACgvI/jOHwwFoGoooVcPm73SMiROE0An1SG
TOXVVPClLqApTQkpcO/MJLwW
=4+Eb
Paul Bolchover
In article <slrn6eh3bp.2...@worf.netins.net>,
Jonathan Grobe <grobe...@netins.net> wrote:
>My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
>position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
>Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
>in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
>seems interested.
I feel that the uk.* system is fairly good at fitting the bill. By
default, groups are fast-tracked into creation. A vote is only required
if a certain number of people object to the creation. This allows
serious groups to be created without much hastle, while having votes on
the trivial ones.
Of course, the Big8 naysayers would just object to every group that is
proposed...
Paul Bolchover
Perry Rovers
Note followup
In news.admin.hierarchies Onno Hovers <on...@surfer.xs4all.nl> wrote:
: Maybe it is time to create a list of _non-crap_ alt groups.
Good idea, but.. who decides what are the 'non-crap' alt groups.
And who will send out rmgroups or a checkgroup or create a decent active
file to be used by new sites?
--
Perry Rovers, IAE Systemmangler, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
'The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door...'
the shortest SF-story ever, by Fredric Brown.
Russ Allbery
In news.admin.hierarchies, Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> writes:
> The alternative to Big 8 is supposed to be net.*. The alternative to
> alt.* is supposed to be mod.*. But these are long term dreams and
> nothing will be done to cure whatever ails Big 8 and alt.*. :-(
As one of the people involved in net.*, I can assure you that net.* is
intended to be nothing of the sort. If it's an alternative to anything,
it's an alternative to alt.*, but it really isn't even that. net.*'s it's
own thing entirely, has a very different feel than a normal Usenet
hierarchy, and isn't aimed at replacing anything.
I suppose that it could be considered an alternative in the same sort of
sense that television is an alternative to the newspaper, but in that
sense it's an "alternative" to most all of Usenet, not just the Big Eight.
<URL:http://www.usenet2.org/> for those who don't have a clue what we're
all talking about. :)
As for the assertion that nothing will be done to correct what ails the
Big Eight and alt.*, I take some offense to that. There are a lot of
people, myself included, trying to not only keep the existing hierarchies
working but also improve them.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
robbie
On 17 Feb 1998 04:15:49 -0800, in
<m390rab...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, posted to
news.admin.hierarchies written by Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> the
following was said:
>As one of the people involved in net.*, I can assure you that net.* is
>intended to be nothing of the sort. If it's an alternative to anything,
>it's an alternative to alt.*, but it really isn't even that. net.*'s it's
>own thing entirely, has a very different feel than a normal Usenet
>hierarchy, and isn't aimed at replacing anything.
Speaking as a private (l)user of U2 it has a very different setup and
feel to standard usenet. It's a lot friendlier for a start, probably
due to the low user count and the strict rules on cross posting.
Hardest thing though is getting a feed.
>I suppose that it could be considered an alternative in the same sort of
>sense that television is an alternative to the newspaper, but in that
>sense it's an "alternative" to most all of Usenet, not just the Big Eight.
more a magazine to a paper - they both convey the information by the
same basic method but do it slightly different.
>As for the assertion that nothing will be done to correct what ails the
>Big Eight and alt.*, I take some offense to that. There are a lot of
>people, myself included, trying to not only keep the existing hierarchies
>working but also improve them.
true - we can all be a bofh when we want when we see it as good for
everyone, we've just got to be able to take the criticism when we get
it wrong.
--
robert...@gecm.com <*> rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk
want the umtsb5 faq? send a blank e-mail to f...@arakeen.demon.co.uk
robbie
On 17 Feb 1998 11:06:26 GMT, in <6cbqvi$dic$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
posted to news.admin.hierarchies written by pb1...@cus.cam.ac.uk
(Paul Bolchover) the following was said:
>I feel that the uk.* system is fairly good at fitting the bill. By
>default, groups are fast-tracked into creation. A vote is only required
>if a certain number of people object to the creation. This allows
>serious groups to be created without much hastle, while having votes on
>the trivial ones.
the most trouble comes from charter changes IMHO, apart from that the
only other trouble is from people who only want to get the group
created that they want and with the exact name they want as well.
>Of course, the Big8 naysayers would just object to every group that is
>proposed...
as could any bunch of regulars in any of the news creation systems...
robbie
--
robert...@gecm.com - work |Mail Ref B216
bas.we...@gecm.com |Fax (44)1268 883140
rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk - Home Email |Phone (44)1268 883303
Snail :B216, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, Essex, SS14 3EL
pgp key available from http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk
Timothy Miller
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
> As one of the people involved in net.*, I can assure you that net.* is
> intended to be nothing of the sort. If it's an alternative to anything,
> it's an alternative to alt.*, but it really isn't even that. net.*'s it's
> own thing entirely, has a very different feel than a normal Usenet
> hierarchy, and isn't aimed at replacing anything.
A side note-- should the creation of net.* be called the Great
Unrenaming?
Just a thought from someone who's really feeling his age about
now.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Timothy Miller
t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee) writes:
> That definately depends on your point of view. In that the unbridled
> growth of alt.* has caused outages on new servers - I regard that as
> bad. In that there are an awful lot of rubbish groups, etc and large
> numbers of control messages that need managing, this is bad. But yes
> there are some great and highly useful groups. Of late, the value is
> less than clear.
Back in the warm-and-fuzzy USENET salad days, alt was a lot of
fun. alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork actually got *on-topic* traffic.
alt.sexy.bald.captains was a laugh riot, as was
alt.ensign.wesly.die.die.die.
These days, it's more annoyance. I don't think I even read any
more alt groups.
But it's all a matter of opinion.
--
Cerebus <tmi...@ibm.net>
Russ Allbery
In news.admin.hierarchies, Timothy Miller <tmi...@ibm.net> writes:
> A side note-- should the creation of net.* be called the Great
> Unrenaming? Just a thought from someone who's really feeling his age
> about now.
I think quite a few people involved in both net.* and mod.* were feeling
nostalgic when it came time to come up with hierarchy names. :)
Dave Williams
In uk.net.news.management Timothy Miller <tmi...@ibm.net> wrote:
: Back in the warm-and-fuzzy USENET salad days, alt was a lot of
: fun. alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork actually got *on-topic* traffic.
: alt.sexy.bald.captains was a laugh riot, as was
: alt.ensign.wesly.die.die.die.
Then there were such wonders as alt.music.enya.puke.puke.pukeSender:, but
there we go.
: These days, it's more annoyance. I don't think I even read any
: more alt groups.
I occasionally dip into a couple - but fairly rarely. I don't recall
participating in anything actively under alt for some time.
Oh well. This is wandering rather, now. Followups to poster.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Paul Bolchover is:
~ >My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
~ >position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
~ >Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
~ >in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
~ >seems interested.
~
~ I feel that the uk.* system is fairly good at fitting the bill. By
~ default, groups are fast-tracked into creation. A vote is only required
~ if a certain number of people object to the creation. This allows
~ serious groups to be created without much hastle, while having votes on
~ the trivial ones.
Mind you, with the increasing number of objections which appear to me
to be simply objections merely for the sake of objecting, I (like
others) feel that a review of the objections procedure would not go
amiss.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOmTwEdRFO5sC2Q6EQK5sQCg65tooykzeic099HUo6d0MBkE+c0An1tE
LIBztDDwXGy140+SfNS/1cSE
=j1IC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Suport the Campaign for the ReIntroduction of the Second Person Plural
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ Pronoun...
Doug Weller
On 16 Feb 1998 19:03:34 GMT, in news.admin.hierarchies, Jonathan Grobe wrote:
[SNIP]
>alt.religion.bahai
>These are viable active groups--but they all failed the corresponding
>Big 8 votes.
Are you talking about the extremely controversial proposal for the moderated
talk.religion.bahai, which I believe failed due to its moderation policy? If
so, I think you should have pointed it out.
[SNIP]
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Timothy Miller is:
~ Back in the warm-and-fuzzy USENET salad days, alt was a lot of
~ fun. alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork actually got *on-topic* traffic.
~ alt.sexy.bald.captains was a laugh riot, as was
~ alt.ensign.wesly.die.die.die.
Does alt.adjective.noun.verb.verb.verb still get on-topic postings ?
~ These days, it's more annoyance. I don't think I even read any
~ more alt groups.
I keep meaning to pop back into alt.(destroy)(pave).the.earth (which
were the first newsgroups I ever participated in) just for old
times' sake...
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOnZfEdRFO5sC2Q6EQK4lgCggLdg4jkN1IpOIitIS3uNCaonzVYAn0yc
N7LCnKAJKhwESmQ2g9TaSXNO
=4dhV
Jon Bell
In article <34f1e39e....@news.demon.co.uk>,
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Are you talking about the extremely controversial proposal for the moderated
>talk.religion.bahai, which I believe failed due to its moderation policy?
The *moderated* talk.religion.bahai????
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
Bill Stewart-Cole
In article <m31zx28...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In news.admin.hierarchies, Timothy Miller <tmi...@ibm.net> writes:
>
> > A side note-- should the creation of net.* be called the Great
> > Unrenaming? Just a thought from someone who's really feeling his age
> > about now.
>
> I think quite a few people involved in both net.* and mod.* were feeling
> nostalgic when it came time to come up with hierarchy names. :)
As a loud proponent of using net.* when the debate over naming was
happening, I second that view.
The 'nostalgia' was not really just for the name and the memories of some
better time. In fact I have no memories of net.* because I wasn't around
then. It was a nostalgia for a news environment built pragmatically. It
was also something of a flashy name :)
The Big 8 and alt have both reached points of at least partial failure
because of basic ethical or perhaps political principles that don't work
at the current scale. Usenet2 was designed to be largely devoid of grand
concepts of group creation and acceptable content except with regard to
things that basically Don't Work (spamming and binaries for example).
--
Bill Stewart-Cole bi...@scconsult.com
If you really want a response, e-mail me.
If you demand a response, you bloody well better be paying me.
Blade-Runner
It was 17 Feb 1998 01:27:41 GMT. You remember? Course you do! Onno Hovers
<on...@surfer.xs4all.nl> wrote some of this :
>I do not think that there is much merit in an intermediate policy
>if the only motivation is to have less joke/poor groups. Why would
>creating more groups help us get less groups?
>
>Maybe it is time to create a list of _non-crap_ alt groups.
Of course many 'joke' groups are more popular than serious groups. There is
nothing inherently wrong with using a group for entertainment, especially in
alt. To say let's have no more is to say that it was wrong to create them in
the first place and that's just plain silly.
I understand that to keep on creating groups ad infinitum is not possible
(though with the expansion of the Internet it is desirable for some expansion -
who could read a group with a thousand posts a day.)
Would it not be possible to give groups a limited licence after which they have
to be reformed all over again?
--
Geoff (Blade-Runner)
Put the cat out to reply via e-mail
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
Go placidly amid the toys and waste (sign on kids' bedroom door) [me]
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Doug Weller is:
~ >alt.religion.bahai
~ >These are viable active groups--but they all failed the corresponding
~ >Big 8 votes.
~
~ Are you talking about the extremely controversial proposal for the moderated
~ talk.religion.bahai, which I believe failed due to its moderation policy? If
~ so, I think you should have pointed it out.
I thought the vote was still open for the baha'i group ? I've just seen
a pointer for it on soc.religion.quaker, any road up.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOoY3EdRFO5sC2Q6EQIduQCdFWZVpyGn59jchetVZHQLcnyAHLwAoNmo
51y70Yw0ZnEhWM75po32+B3j
=UU1A
jAmES Lawson
hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk (Hilde) wrote:
> Are Demon's profits down or something?
What profits...
> I PAY Demon for a service which includes honouring all alt.* 'create
> group' messages. If you stopped, you should cut your charges.
That's wonderfully 90s and progressive of you Hilde of Borve, to pay
for the demon account which is, by all accounts, belonging to Neil of Borve.
jAmES
--
T e t r a c h l o r o m e t h a n e ------ CCl4 http://fish.ccl4.org/java/
* Get yourself a VIEWDATA client and get on! http://www.ccl4.org/viewdata/
dr_chasm #ccl4, #acorn, #zetnet - The Bitch Is Back - http://www.ccl4.org/
]
Jim Riley
In article <slrn6eh3bp.2...@worf.netins.net> Jonathan Grobe
wrote:
>In article <887647050.18528.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Dave Williams wrote:
>>In uk.net.news.management article <hilde-16029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
>>Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>: You say you're being pedantic, but you're not. I asked has the EXISTENCE
>>: of alt.* caused harm.
>>
>>... and the answer is that if you regard the unmanaged hierarchy of then
>>which has now grown into what is has as having caused harm, then yes -
>>by it's very nature it has. It's also caused some good as well.
>>
>The good is substantially greater than the harm.
>
>The higher the requirements to create a group in a hierarchy:
>1. The fewer the joke/poor quality groups created.
>2. The larger the number of what would be useful groups are not created.
>
>So you have a tradeoff between the two. The Big 8 has clearly set a
>requirement level so high that:
>1. A significant number of groups are being rejected that would be
>useful groups (the failure rate on Big 8 votes has gone up from about
>20% in 1995 to close to 50% in 1997)
Very few proposals are rejected. Only 95 of 626 proposals from 95-97
drew more than 50 No votes. 49 of these 95 passed. Another 24 of 95
had support that would *not* have been sufficient in most cases to pass
even with ordinary background levels of opposition.
This leaves 22 proposals that can be said to have been rejected. 6 did
not even have a majority. Another 4 had less than 2/3 support.
Opposition has remained relatively constant over the last 3 years.
There has been a big drop in amount of support for proposals. This
indicates mainly a dropoff in worthwhile proposals (or at least those
of drawing support).
>2. Because of the high requirements lots of desirable groups never
>ever get proposed.
>[And note that with the Big 8 requirements, there will be an increasing
>amount of dead wood--such as groups on computer hardware/software that no
>one uses anymore--that no one is ever going to propose RFDs on to
>remove--and that wouldn't pass it they did]
>
>Look at groups (which I have created) like:
>alt.autos.ford
Groups already existed for rec.auto.makers.ford.mustang and
rec.auto.makers.ford.explorer. An RFD to proposal to create
rec.autos.makers.ford.trucks and rec.autos.makers.ford.misc
(for Fords that are neither Mustangs, Explorers, or trucks) failed
to receive +100 support (106:29 and 107:35).
>alt.med.veterinary
This failed to pass in the face of very heavy opposition (403:314).
What is the rest of the story? Is alt.med.veterinary a moderated group?
>alt.religion.bahai
There is an existing group for discussion of the Bahai religion
soc.religion.bahai. There are NO instances in the Big 8 of paired
groups for discussion of a particular group. The proponent was
extraordinary in his behaviour.
>Then there are large numbers of groups which might well have passed a
>Big 8 group, but that no one thought it worth their trouble to try
>to pass--a group like alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, a group
>I created about a year ago and now has 250 or so posts per day.
>
>My own view is that it would be very desirable to have an intermediate
>position between the overly high, too complicated procedures of the
>Big 8 and the anarchy of alt (and I created news.admin.hierarchies partly
>in hopes people would try to form this type hierarchy), but no one else
>seems interested.
Is it possible to create such a hierarchy *within* alt, by somehow
recognizing worthwhile groups?
--
Jim Riley
Sysop
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <873ehhg...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> of alt.config,
18 Feb 1998 07:57:58 +0000, Andrew Gierth <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There has never been a proposal for a moderated talk.religion.bahai,
>according to the news.announce.newgroups archive.
I don't disbelieve you, but they were arguing the issue up and down
in news.groups a few months ago. It got so tiresome that I quit reading
the group.
>The first proposal for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai failed due
>to a vote campaign apparently conducted on Bahai mailing lists
>(the final result was 157:691).
>
>The second proposal is being voted on now (voting closes today).
Hopefully, discussion was more civilized this time.
John
- --
//------------------------------------------------------------------------
// `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
// `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here.
// I'm mad. You're mad.'
// --Lewis Carrol
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
iQCVAwUBNOuK3LMHJ4yl8MPNAQHCYwP/X/pjbmkheWnrsrJZ+9eSYHy1mCyIkBVS
fCpaEEjvHxcQj96WnRTcSdTtOQTXsEkhH9Cgcs9OHlaSVwHxN+Exy4H/lrOqH+yr
ahqKaD0UYtrq9rGSNCXpvDqDmTDcrIWsJgv2EU4ToM8OluTtziKXq8PC6BgPOKgl
MS54cl5tcGs=
=RYao
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter da Silva
In article <3500ae06...@news.pipeline.com>,
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Opposition has remained relatively constant over the last 3 years.
> There has been a big drop in amount of support for proposals. This
> indicates mainly a dropoff in worthwhile proposals (or at least those
> of drawing support).
Or a dropoff in support for the whole process.
Jon Bell
John Line
In article <hilde-17029...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34fef917....@clues.com>, t...@psp.co.uk wrote:
>> I don't know if aDe lovett still produces the stats on demon's news
>> feed - but if so, go have a look. You'll see just how much of the new
>> spool is alt. Then guess just how much of that spool is really of use
>> to virtually all of demons customer base. Then work out what it costs
>> to maintain all those servers, not to mention the cost of the
>> bandwidth to receive and re-transmit the spool. Non trivial.
>
>I don't think we disagree on any facts here, or even about a proportion of
>posts to alt.* being crap.
One aspect of the problem that is easily overlooked (except by the people
running the news servers...) is that a lot of the articles are either spam
or spam-cancels, and alt.* (esp. alt.binaries.*) is likely to be
particularly full of spam. It's common to see people report that of a full
feed, they are seeing 40% spam, 40% spam cancels, and only 20% "real
articles". On occasions, 90%+ has been reported as spam/spam-cancels. You
may be irritated by the amount of spam you see, but that's only the spam
that didn't get cancelled by one or other net.vigilante (or other anti-spam
measures) before you saw it.
In that context, whether the non-spam articles are worth having may be
almost irrelevant, since they are in the minority!
John Line
--
John Line - Cambridge University Computing Service, Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Internet: jm...@cus.cam.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 334708 FAX: +44 1223 334679
Joe Bernstein
(Newsgroups and followups reluctantly let alone, but isn't this pretty
Big 8-specific by now?)
Nope, does not follow. Dropoff in support for the whole process is
conceivable if unlikely (are people really likely to say "No, I won't
vote for this group I really want to read because I hate tale" ?).
But I can't imagine that the, shall we say, voting Big 8 population
has suffered so much attrition in the last three years that the
long September completely failed to replenish it. We're talking
absolute numbers here, not ratio of voters to total Usenet users.
(Which obviously has been in decline.) Ignorance of Big 8 voting
could have increased exponentially in 1995 and 1996 while still
increasing the voting population, and indeed that's what I'd have
expected to see happen.
(Oh, as for dropoff in support, I can't resist noting that the most
plausible version of that implausible argument *I've* heard is that
legions of address-mungers have become terrified of having their
addresses posted in clear in RESULT postings.)
I remain persuaded that decline in worthwhile (to Jane Average) proposals
is the most plausible explanation, followed by increasingly good non-
campaigning behaviour on the part of average proponents, followed in
turn at some distance by decline in Usenet civic spirit.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
Speaking for myself alone j...@sfbooks.com jos...@tezcat.com
Colin Douthwaite
[ Note: This is really off-topic in alt.config since it concerns
Big 8, not alt.* and the value of alt.*, but since Henrietta
introduced it then I'll bite. ]
In Message-ID: <34ea5681...@news.wwa.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
> Big 8 is not necessarily "too far gone," but it's still going to
> take a lot of work, starting with Jani Patikallio's (sp?) scheme for
> getting rid of empty groups.
There is nothing wrong with empty groups...just ignore them...the
majority of them result from AWOL moderators. The empty groups serve
as a reminder of a serious deficiency in Usenet moderation policy.
What _was_ wrong in Big 8 was the idea of splitting/reorgs of existing
newsgroups into far too many fragmented subgroups with as many as 5
levels, having esoteric names and very limited patronage and
proliferation of these subgroups towards 10,000 Big 8 groups in
total...more than enough groups for anyone.
Some of the people who have become dissatisfied with Usenet-1 are
the same people who promoted and pursued those Usenet strategies
which have made Usenet-1 the way it is now.
Relentless pursuit of ideologies or unpopular strategies in a medium
like the Net is futile and can only cause conflict, aggro and
unending flamewars...as we have all seen.
> The reorganization of news.groups should help, but there is still
> a long way to go, IMO.
The reorganisation, splitting and fragmentation of the newsgroup
"news.groups" is both unnecessary and will do nothing to promote or
enhance Usenet-1.
The last 6 or 8 months has, at last, seen a much quieter news.groups,
and also its correct use...i.e. discussion of RFDs for _NEW_ newsgroups...
instead of being the sewer and cesspool of Usenet-1 Politics it was
said to be way back in 1995. There is a real chance now that non-
regulars can enter news.groups and participate in an RFD discussion
without finding the place a sewer or cesspool...that's how it should be.
It also looks like Big 8 new group creation is slowing, and so it
ought to do with already 8000-10000 Big 8 groups to choose from. How
many groups do you try to read ? Currently I have about 55 spread
over Big 8, alt.* and locals. About 12 groups per day is considered
maximum.
Henrietta...I think you're slipping ! :-) There's a lot of hooey
talked about reorganising news.groups and Usenet-1, mainly methinks
for the sake of controversy, argument and ideology and not for the
benefit of ordinary Net users who enjoy reading newsgroups of their
choice.
Bye,
Blade-Runner
It was 19 Feb 1998 17:50:19 -0600. You remember? Course you do!
jos...@tezcat.com (Joe Bernstein) wrote some of this :
>(Oh, as for dropoff in support, I can't resist noting that the most
>plausible version of that implausible argument *I've* heard is that
>legions of address-mungers have become terrified of having their
>addresses posted in clear in RESULT postings.)
Can't help noticing a marked increase in UCE since I let my e-mail address loose
in the control group. I can't see why spam blocked addresses can't be allowed
or why they can't be published in a mangled form. If I wrote to a newspaper or
voted in an election I would not expect to have my address published.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Joe Bernstein is:
~ I remain persuaded that decline in worthwhile (to Jane Average) proposals
~ is the most plausible explanation, followed by increasingly good non-
~ campaigning behaviour on the part of average proponents, followed in
~ turn at some distance by decline in Usenet civic spirit.
Could it not also be a simple function of there being only a finite
number of subjects that people wish to discuss in an international
forum - whence the upsurge in popularity for the regional hierarchies ?
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNO02y0dRFO5sC2Q6EQLQzwCdFogIAL6PWsdUafJov83MrW6hmw4AoKHs
+jC7ou0JIhmG4QBQEW+7lPxb
=gUC+
abelard
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:16:29 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee)
typed:
>UK.* strikes that balance, in my view. Virtually any useful group
>that has been seriously proposed in the last couple of years had been
>adopted,
not exactly the whole story....but...
i think a better way to go is to start opening up
*and encouraging/advising* alternative hierarchies....
perhaps think of a group specifically designed
for advising and assisting those who wish to start
new hierarchies.....
why not the altruistic and influence extending
initiative by establishing such a group on uk.*?
let the market weed out the bankrupt ones....
get rid of this pretence of 'democracy'....
it has no meaning on the net.....it causes aggravation
and wastes everybody's time....
straw polls on the other hand...may be used
to sample opinion.....
run the hierarchies like companies.....
leave .alt as a safety valve...
regards.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
In article <6cigfr$4...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
Joe Bernstein <jos...@tezcat.com> wrote:
> Nope, does not follow. Dropoff in support for the whole process is
> conceivable if unlikely (are people really likely to say "No, I won't
> vote for this group I really want to read because I hate tale" ?).
No, but we do say "I'm just going to ignore the whole process because it's
become corrupted despite Dave Lawrence's best efforts, and I wish him well
in reforming it."
Thomas Lee
>Actually you seem to have just come up with a bloody good reason in
>FAVOUR of them, the SPAMers have got a thousands of alt. groups to post
>to before they get to the "proper" groups, hopefully enough time and a
>high enough BI to get the cancelbots up and running and the ISPs cutting
>the feeds.
LOL.
Justifying the thousands of alt groups as a way to catch out spammers
is amusing.
Frankly, I'd rather just shoot the spammers. They'd never spam
again...
Thomas
Thomas Lee
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:16:29 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee)
>
> typed:
>
>
>>UK.* strikes that balance, in my view. Virtually any useful group
>>that has been seriously proposed in the last couple of years had been
>>adopted,
>
>not exactly the whole story....but...
What, exactaly, is missing from tis statement?
>i think a better way to go is to start opening up
> *and encouraging/advising* alternative hierarchies....
This is most certainly outside the scope of uk.net.news.*.
>perhaps think of a group specifically designed
> for advising and assisting those who wish to start
> new hierarchies.....
UNNC/UNNM is focused solely on UK.* - this may be useful, but please
take it elsewhere.
>get rid of this pretence of 'democracy'....
> it has no meaning on the net.....it causes aggravation
> and wastes everybody's time....
>straw polls on the other hand...may be used
> to sample opinion.....
If you wish to change the guidelines surrounding Group creation in the
UK.* hierarchy, please create an RFD.
>run the hierarchies like companies.....
Not a bad idea. But who would be on the Board?
>leave .alt as a safety valve...
Hmmm.
Thomas
boar dome
In article <hilde-21029...@158.152.12.77>,
Hilde <hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If somebody knows a bit about how top-level hierarchies get themselves
>created, and why, and how ones goes about it all, and what sort of views
>news-heads have expressed about it all, it would be very useful if they
>could let us know!
Shh. It's a secret. Only the Cabal knows.
rone
--
Chaining yourself to a stump isn't civil disobedience unless you're really
against stump-chaining laws.
- gomi no sensei <go...@best.com>
Kai Henningsen
blac...@geocities.com (Blade-Runner) wrote on 20.02.98 in <34f043c1...@news.virgin.net>:
> Can't help noticing a marked increase in UCE since I let my e-mail address
> loose in the control group. I can't see why spam blocked addresses can't be
> allowed or why they can't be published in a mangled form. If I wrote to a
> newspaper or voted in an election I would not expect to have my address
> published. --
Mangled (as in, not working - note that my address looks weird, but _does_
work) addresses should not ever be used. They are clearly not allowed by
any of the relevant standards.
Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
I refuse to manually un-mangle an address, and I'm not the only one. If
people can't play by the rules, I'm not interested in talking to them.
Kai
--
Internet: k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Jonathan Grobe
In article <34fca8e1...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard wrote:
>i think a better way to go is to start opening up
> *and encouraging/advising* alternative hierarchies....
> for advising and assisting those who wish to start
> new hierarchies....
news.admin.hierarchies was created partially for that purpose.
--
Jonathan Grobe
For millions of used, out-of-print and collectable books try:
Advanced Book exchange: <http://www.abebooks.com>
Justa Lurker
| On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:53:51 GMT, abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk
| (abelard) wrote:
| >On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:16:29 GMT, t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee)
| > typed:
| >i think a better way to go is to start opening up
| > *and encouraging/advising* alternative hierarchies....
| This is most certainly outside the scope of uk.net.news.*.
I believe abelard is referring to a uk.alt hierarchy, which
would be inside the scope for unnc, and due to the transfer
on control of the yet to be created uk.alt to users (giving
users control of creation instead of the normal method for
uk.*) it is also a management issue.
The questions are:
1) Should uk.alt be added as a hierarchy
2) Should control of uk.alt groups/hierarchies be given away
from control to the general populace.
jl
Edward Thomas
Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> blac...@geocities.com (Blade-Runner) wrote on 20.02.98 in <34f043c1...@news.virgin.net>:
>
> > Can't help noticing a marked increase in UCE since I let my e-mail address
> > loose in the control group. I can't see why spam blocked addresses can't be
> > allowed or why they can't be published in a mangled form. If I wrote to a
> > newspaper or voted in an election I would not expect to have my address
> > published. --
>
> Mangled (as in, not working - note that my address looks weird, but _does_
> work) addresses should not ever be used. They are clearly not allowed by
> any of the relevant standards.
>
> Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
>
> I refuse to manually un-mangle an address, and I'm not the only one. If
> people can't play by the rules, I'm not interested in talking to them.
>
> Kai
The day spam dissapears is the day that people will stop spamblocking
their addresses (I don't because I don't care if I reciave spam, I don't
pay for online time so I just delete or filter it).
Colin Douthwaite
David Farrar (da...@home.net.nz) wrote:
>A long time ago (specifically on 20 Feb 1998 07:28:40 GMT) in a galaxy
>far far away (alt.config) Colin Douthwaite wrote: in
><6cjbb8$j2t$1...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>:
>
>>There is nothing wrong with empty groups...just ignore them...the
>>majority of them result from AWOL moderators. The empty groups serve
>>as a reminder of a serious deficiency in Usenet moderation policy.
>>
>Ummn, no way. There's prob less than 100 empty moderated groups and
>at a glance I would say some 10,000 empty unmoderated groups.
>
>You may detest moderation, but don't make things up please.
I knew that this BIG 8 diversion was off-topic in alt.config and
would eventually cause misunderstandings.
My comment referred to Big 8 newsgroups only, excluding alt.* and
other hierarchies. The total of Big 8 newsgroups is only 8,000 to 10,000.
David Lawrence no longer posts the lists of newsgroups so I don't
have the exact total.
Last year someone over in news.groups did a detailed list of empty
or moribund Big 8 newsgroups and I think a large proportion were
moderated newsgroups without a moderator. I did have that list but
lost it just recently in a non-recoverable hard disk crash. :-(
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
Simon Gray (si...@star-one.org.uk) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Joe Bernstein is:
>
>~ I remain persuaded that decline in worthwhile (to Jane Average) proposals
>~ is the most plausible explanation, followed by increasingly good non-
>~ campaigning behaviour on the part of average proponents, followed in
>~ turn at some distance by decline in Usenet civic spirit.
>Could it not also be a simple function of there being only a finite
>number of subjects that people wish to discuss in an international
>forum - whence the upsurge in popularity for the regional hierarchies ?
I suspect that is close to the most likely explanation.
Most subjects now seem to be well covered by existing newsgroups in some
hierarchy somewhere.
I can follow about 70 newsgroups maximum on a weekly basis. How
about you ? Right now my list comprises 12 alt.*, 7 local and 37 Big 8.
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
Jon Bell (jtb...@presby.edu) wrote:
>In article <6cgvif$l...@web.nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>In article <3500ae06...@news.pipeline.com>,
>>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>> Opposition has remained relatively constant over the last 3 years.
>>> There has been a big drop in amount of support for proposals. This
>>> indicates mainly a dropoff in worthwhile proposals (or at least those
>>> of drawing support).
>>
>>Or a dropoff in support for the whole process.
>Or an increase in *ignorance* of the whole process.
Or a diminishing interest in specialist newsgroups of limited
patronage. ( Anyone for "alt.computers.mousepads.lamination" ? )
Or even rapidly diminishing lack of interest of the growing Net user
population in newsgroups relative to all other attractions on the Net ?
Bye,
David Farrar
A long time ago (specifically on 21 Feb 1998 05:07:31 GMT) in a galaxy
far far away (alt.config) Colin Douthwaite wrote: in
>David Farrar (da...@home.net.nz) wrote:
>>A long time ago (specifically on 20 Feb 1998 07:28:40 GMT) in a galaxy
>>far far away (alt.config) Colin Douthwaite wrote: in
>><6cjbb8$j2t$1...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>:
>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with empty groups...just ignore them...the
>>>majority of them result from AWOL moderators. The empty groups serve
>>>as a reminder of a serious deficiency in Usenet moderation policy.
>>>
>
>>Ummn, no way. There's prob less than 100 empty moderated groups and
>>at a glance I would say some 10,000 empty unmoderated groups.
>>
>>You may detest moderation, but don't make things up please.
>
>I knew that this BIG 8 diversion was off-topic in alt.config and
>would eventually cause misunderstandings.
>
>My comment referred to Big 8 newsgroups only, excluding alt.* and
>other hierarchies. The total of Big 8 newsgroups is only 8,000 to 10,000.
>David Lawrence no longer posts the lists of newsgroups so I don't
>have the exact total.
>
Okay, in relation to big 8 I would agree. Apologies for any
misunderstanding.
Of course there are many big 8 moderated groups working wonderfully
but that's another debate!
DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<da...@home.net.nz> or <da...@work.net.nz>
Boycott Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net> * Ban Spam! <http://www.cauce.org>
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Colin Douthwaite
is:
~ Or even rapidly diminishing lack of interest of the growing Net user
~ population in newsgroups relative to all other attractions on the Net ?
Which I have to confess i've always found rather odd, to be honest.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNO6RmkdRFO5sC2Q6EQI8AACfUbil5wV2ByopAZnyelAxSH3AYZ4AoKvb
uF9ZiV+kKCPACi1lmROocLiZ
=yrjS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Support the Campaign for the ReIntroduction of the Second Person Plural
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ Pronoun...
Jon Bell
>Big 8-specific by now?)
You're right... this probably *really* should be in news.groups, but I've
set followups to news.admin.hierarchies for the sake of continuity.
>In article <EoMLH...@presby.edu>, Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <6cgvif$l...@web.nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>
>> >In article <3500ae06...@news.pipeline.com>,
>> >Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Opposition has remained relatively constant over the last 3 years.
>> >> There has been a big drop in amount of support for proposals. This
>> >> indicates mainly a dropoff in worthwhile proposals (or at least those
>> >> of drawing support).
>
>> >Or a dropoff in support for the whole process.
>
>> Or an increase in *ignorance* of the whole process.
>
>But I can't imagine that the, shall we say, voting Big 8 population
>has suffered so much attrition in the last three years that the
>long September completely failed to replenish it. We're talking
>absolute numbers here, not ratio of voters to total Usenet users.
But assuming that the number of "knowledgeable" people has remained
constant, or at least not increasing as rapidly as the total Usenet
population, that means that they're spread out over a larger number of
newsgroups. That could mean that in any particular newsgroup where an
RFD is likely to be posted, there are fewer people who would fully grasp
its significance and take the initiative to follow the discussion and
vote.
Also, in any particular newsgroup, there would be fewer people who have
the knowledge (and the time) to start an RFD for a related group or a
re-organization. Case in point: the disputes about commercial postings
in rec.collecting.stamps have been festering for quite a while now, but
only recently did someone finally put together an RFD for
rec.collecting.stamps.marketplace... and that "someone" was none other
than the original proponent for rec.collecting.stamps.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
Simon Lyall
In news.admin.hierarchies Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Last year someone over in news.groups did a detailed list of empty
>or moribund Big 8 newsgroups and I think a large proportion were
>moderated newsgroups without a moderator. I did have that list but
>lost it just recently in a non-recoverable hard disk crash. :-(
There is currently an official effort going to sort out these moribund
moderated newsgroups.
--
Simon Lyall. | Looking for Work | Mail: si...@darkmere.gen.nz
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention." | MT.
Blade-Runner
It was 21 Feb 1998 00:02:00 +0200. You remember? Course you do!
kaih=6oHAS...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote some of this :
>
>Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
I think 'anti-social' is a little extreme. In what way am I affecting society?
>
>I refuse to manually un-mangle an address, and I'm not the only one. If
>people can't play by the rules, I'm not interested in talking to them.
If you are that pedantic, I reciprocate.
Blade-Runner
It was Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:47:27 GMT. You remember? Course you do!
si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) wrote some of this :
>
>~ Or even rapidly diminishing lack of interest of the growing Net user
>~ population in newsgroups relative to all other attractions on the Net ?
>
>Which I have to confess i've always found rather odd, to be honest.
There is a critical number (I'll leave it to some keen undergraduate to work it
out) of participants in a newsgroup above which the group becomes unreadable.
uk.misc. for example has far too much traffic for me to keep up with
comfortably. So if Usenet is to attract more people it has to have more groups
to spread the load other wise they will be put off by the learning curve and
sheer volume of traffic.
So how many are using Usenet? Say there are 30,000 groups. Say each has an
average of 300 readers. That's nine million users. But wait, many people
subscribe to ten or more groups. That brings the real figure down to 900k and
IMO it's probably less than that. What would that be, 1%? Not much is it?
But not unsurprising; I'm often surprised at how often I see names I recognise
in various groups.
Could be the system is self limiting? Who knows. we've never been here before.
Exciting though, isn't it?
Thomas Lee
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:55:36 GMT, /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) wrote:
>I believe abelard is referring to a uk.alt hierarchy, which
>would be inside the scope for unnc, and due to the transfer
>on control of the yet to be created uk.alt to users (giving
>users control of creation instead of the normal method for
>uk.*) it is also a management issue.
So far, there _is_ no uk.alt.* hierarchy, so there is nothing yet to
devolve. And so far, no one has even created an RFD for one.
Personally, I can't see the need for such a set of groups under uk.*.
Anyone is free to create an RFD for such a hierarchy, but I guess
can't reallly see the need. So far, the existing hierarchies, alt and
uk satisfy the requirements thus far set out.
>The questions are:
>1) Should uk.alt be added as a hierarchy
In my view, no.
>2) Should control of uk.alt groups/hierarchies be given away
> from control to the general populace.
With not group, there's nothing to give away!
If you want a uk-alt.*, or alt-uk.*, fine - go ahead and newgroup it
and try to get the news admins round the world and in the UK to take
it. As for uk.alt, then I suggest some should RFD it just to get it
shot down.
Thomas
Jonathan Grobe
In article <6cms72$n...@darkmere.gen.nz>, Simon Lyall wrote:
>In news.admin.hierarchies Colin Douthwaite <cf...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>>Last year someone over in news.groups did a detailed list of empty
>>or moribund Big 8 newsgroups and I think a large proportion were
>>moderated newsgroups without a moderator. I did have that list but
>>lost it just recently in a non-recoverable hard disk crash. :-(
>
>There is currently an official effort going to sort out these moribund
>moderated newsgroups.
>
first I have heard about it.
Colin, I know I published such a list of about 100 groups. This was
in reaction to Jan Isley's proposal to set up this complex monitoring
of Big 8 groups to find out which didn't have any traffic. Since
Jan has left Usenet, this probably died (as I predicted it would).
I don't think I have the list anymore (I think it happened before my
last annual hard-disk crash) but you could search Dejanews, and
news.groups for my name.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Blade-Runner is:
[...]
~ Could be the system is self limiting? Who knows. we've never been here before.
~ Exciting though, isn't it?
Yes, I get all that. But what I don't understand is why would anybody
pay for an internet account & only use email & the web ? If there was
no netnews I wouldn't bother myself.
Just thinking aloud, since I know that that is indeed what the majority
*do* pay for. Ho hum. Perhaps i'm just weird...
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNO9w80dRFO5sC2Q6EQKQ/QCg1JJUdvPEfxPZ+FArt3LD7z/w9VYAnibG
6cD6FNBoXitoClwVGbNRGI2a
=Ig1/
jon ivar skullerud
hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk (Hilde) writes:
> In article <34fca8e1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:
> > perhaps think of a group specifically designed
> > for advising and assisting those who wish to start
> > new hierarchies.....
> > why not the altruistic and influence extending
> > initiative by establishing such a group on uk.*?
> Wouldn't news.* be a better place for it, or is news.* just for Big-8?
> If somebody knows a bit about how top-level hierarchies get themselves
> created, and why, and how ones goes about it all, and what sort of views
> news-heads have expressed about it all, it would be very useful if they
> could let us know!
Read the Newsgroups: line. It's right up there.
Then subscribe to that group for a while. It is quite low-volume.
--
______ __________________________________________
/ | |
| jon | jon ivar skullerud |
\______ | jon...@ph.ed.ac.uk |
\ | jsku...@physics.adelaide.edu.au |
ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~jonivar/ |
_______/ |__________________________________________|
Jonathan Grobe
In article <355f18a0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Simon Gray wrote:
>
>Down on uk.net.news.management street, the vibe from Doug Weller is:
>
>~ >alt.religion.bahai
>~ >These are viable active groups--but they all failed the corresponding
>~ >Big 8 votes.
>~
>I thought the vote was still open for the baha'i group ? I've just seen
>a pointer for it on soc.religion.quaker, any road up.
It is currently being voted upon for the second time. I created
alt.religion.bahai after it failed the first time with 150 or so Yes votes
and 600 or so No votes. From the discussion I have seen there is
a moderately good chance it may pass this time.
Jonathan Grobe
In article <350836e5....@clues.com>, Thomas Lee wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:02:55 +0000,
>hilde@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk (Hilde) wrote:
>
>>
>>I share your view of such 'groups'. It's a bit like a lot of graffiti
>>really. Is it really that much of a problem?
>
>I can be. Esepciallly if the newgroup message breaks your newsreader
>or news server.
>
Doesn't this indicate incompetence on the part of the the newsreader
or news server programmer? I thought it was spelled out in just about
every elementary programming course to check input data for invalid
entries/handle it gracefully...
Mark L. Kahnt
Thomas Lee wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:55:36 GMT, /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) wrote:
>
[***Snip!***]
> In my view, no.
>
> >2) Should control of uk.alt groups/hierarchies be given away
> > from control to the general populace.
>
> With not group, there's nothing to give away!
>
> If you want a uk-alt.*, or alt-uk.*, fine - go ahead and newgroup it
> and try to get the news admins round the world and in the UK to take
> it. As for uk.alt, then I suggest some should RFD it just to get it
> shot down.
>
> Thomas
Should a uk.alt be created, I would recommend a gatekeeper to handle the
newgrouping, so that the vanity newsgroups don't get sent about, and a
quick review of format and prior discussion can be made. I am not crazy
about the idea - if a group cannot be justified and demonstrated that
there is reasonable potential for viability, although maybe not to the
degree that exists in the news.group approval process, I have to wonder
if it should be newgrouped.
--
Mark L. Kahnt M.L. Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Email: ka...@adan.kingston.net
Snail: P.O. Box 1263, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 4Y8
Voice: (613) 531-8767 Fax: (613) 531-8684 Cell: (613) 539-0935
Justa Lurker
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:04:20 GMT, in uk.net.news.management,
t...@psp.co.uk (Thomas Lee) wrote:
| So far, there _is_ no uk.alt.* hierarchy, so there is nothing yet to
| devolve. And so far, no one has even created an RFD for one.
| Personally, I can't see the need for such a set of groups under uk.*.
| Anyone is free to create an RFD for such a hierarchy, but I guess
| can't reallly see the need. So far, the existing hierarchies, alt and
| uk satisfy the requirements thus far set out.
...
| If you want a uk-alt.*, or alt-uk.*, fine - go ahead and newgroup it
| and try to get the news admins round the world and in the UK to take
| it. As for uk.alt, then I suggest some should RFD it just to get it
| shot down.
uk.alt.* would be the only group on topic for discussion in unnc
and/or unnm. You are right - there should be an RFD before the
discussion begins.
I was trying to point out that such discussion would be on topic,
since uk.alt.* would require creation by the folks in unnc, and
any change in who creates groups in uk.* would require a change
in management rules to be made here.
Neither of which is likely to pass, but the discussion would be
on topic. Right now it is just premature. (Just like many of the
non RFD threads in unnc and unnm. People seeking consensus before
putting the work into an RFD.)
JL
Cipher
In article <slrn6euoof.a...@worf.netins.net> Jonathan Grobe,
grobe...@netins.net writes:
>Could you provide more details on this official effort? This is the
>first I have heard about it.
Well one thing I've noticed is that Mindspring has begun a serious NG
trimming operation of late. They used to carry everything, honored every
cmsg, etc....
Isley has been doing some serious pruning lately. I visited a few empty
groups that used to be completely empty, not even spam...
I get a *group does not exist* message now.
Cipher
Visit one of my Mac help sites at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/4404/
http://www.mindspring.com/~cipher/
http://www.erols.com/cipher1138/
PGP Public Key available at my website
Jonathan Grobe
In article <6cpk0a$8...@camel20.mindspring.com>, Cipher wrote:
>In article <slrn6euoof.a...@worf.netins.net> Jonathan Grobe,
>grobe...@netins.net writes:
>>Could you provide more details on this official effort? This is the
>>first I have heard about it.
>
>Well one thing I've noticed is that Mindspring has begun a serious NG
>trimming operation of late. They used to carry everything, honored every
>cmsg, etc....
>
>Isley has been doing some serious pruning lately. I visited a few empty
>groups that used to be completely empty, not even spam...
>
Which of the 3000 or so hierarchies you find on a collection of sites
are actually useful?
Which are the useful alt. groups?
...
Kai Henningsen
blac...@geocities.com (Blade-Runner) wrote on 21.02.98 in <34f50ca6...@news.virgin.net>:
> It was 21 Feb 1998 00:02:00 +0200. You remember? Course you do!
> kaih=6oHAS...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote some of this :
>
> >
> >Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
>
> I think 'anti-social' is a little extreme. In what way am I affecting
> society?
Anti-social as in "I have a problem. Let's make everybody else suffer for
it."
> >I refuse to manually un-mangle an address, and I'm not the only one. If
> >people can't play by the rules, I'm not interested in talking to them.
>
> If you are that pedantic, I reciprocate.
Pedantic has absolutely nothing to do with it. Refusing to give in to
rudeness has.
Kai Henningsen
si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) wrote on 22.02.98 in <35517057....@news.demon.co.uk>:
> Yes, I get all that. But what I don't understand is why would anybody
> pay for an internet account & only use email & the web ? If there was
> no netnews I wouldn't bother myself.
>
> Just thinking aloud, since I know that that is indeed what the majority
> *do* pay for. Ho hum. Perhaps i'm just weird...
You aren't. They are.
John Line
In article <34EFB4DF...@adan.kingston.net>,
Mark L. Kahnt <ka...@go-away-spammers.adan.kingston.net> wrote:
>Should a uk.alt be created, I would recommend a gatekeeper to handle the
>newgrouping, so that the vanity newsgroups don't get sent about, and a
>quick review of format and prior discussion can be made. I am not crazy
>about the idea - if a group cannot be justified and demonstrated that
>there is reasonable potential for viability, although maybe not to the
>degree that exists in the news.group approval process, I have to wonder
>if it should be newgrouped.
It couldn't be a 100% alt-like anarchy anyway, since it would inherently be
covered by the uk.* checkgroups control messages - there would have to be
some means by which uk.alt.* groups could be deemed to be "valid" and be
included in the uk.* checkgroups messages, as happens for de.alt.* groups in
relation to de.* checkgroups messages. uk.alt.config would probably have to
be the first uk.alt group, as the place (like alt.config or more
particularly, de.alt.config) where it could be established that a group
should be created (and added to the list for checkgroups), albeit with less
stringent criteria than for "mainstream" uk.* groups.
John Line
--
John Line - Cambridge University Computing Service, Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Internet: jm...@cus.cam.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 334708 FAX: +44 1223 334679
Jonathan Grobe
In article <6oMVY...@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>blac...@geocities.com (Blade-Runner) wrote on 21.02.98 in <34f50ca6...@news.virgin.net>:
>
>> It was 21 Feb 1998 00:02:00 +0200. You remember? Course you do!
>> kaih=6oHAS...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote some of this :
>>
>> >
>> >Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
>>
>> I think 'anti-social' is a little extreme. In what way am I affecting
>> society?
>
>Anti-social as in "I have a problem. Let's make everybody else suffer for
>it."
>
The only people affected at all are the person who munges his address
(and he has made the decision he wants) and people who might want to
email him. For the vast majority of the people who are thinking of
emailing and see the munged address: not emailing the poster causes
no suffering at all. I personally only find it annoying if I have
gone to the trouble of replying to a help type post, didn't recognize
it as munged and it bounces. If I recognized it as munged I would
never bother to try to email the guy.
Blade-Runner
It was Sun, 22 Feb 1998 01:03:59 GMT. You remember? Course you do!
si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) wrote some of this :
>
>~ Could be the system is self limiting? Who knows. we've never been here before.
>~ Exciting though, isn't it?
>
>Yes, I get all that. But what I don't understand is why would anybody
>pay for an internet account & only use email & the web ? If there was
>no netnews I wouldn't bother myself.
Me neither, but the fact is that the driving force behind the expansion of the
Internet is the web. Which is perhaps just as well because imagine what would
happen if everyone connected decided to use Usenet. Thankfully it won't happen
because this medium takes some effort on the part of the participant.
'Me-too'ers are not going to get much out of it or stay long. I could never
understand why ISP's worried about online content but apparently (so I am told)
it is seen as important in choice of service provider. Go figure.
> Ho hum. Perhaps i'm just weird...
You might say that Simon, I couldn't possibly comment....... :o)
Blade-Runner
It was 22 Feb 1998 14:05:00 +0200. You remember? Course you do!
kaih=6oMVY...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote some of this :
>> >Mangling your address is highly anti-social behaviour.
>>
>> I think 'anti-social' is a little extreme. In what way am I affecting
>> society?
>
>Anti-social as in "I have a problem. Let's make everybody else suffer for
>it."
We all have the problem of UCE. How are you suffering? Usenet is a discussion
medium, I generally don't expect or want e-mails from it. I could just put a
false e-mail address. Now, /that/ would be anti-social because the postings
would be anonymous. My little spam block foils the bots, and yet allows people
who genuinely want to contact me to do so. I've even been told by some that it
is quite humourous.
Incidentally in my previous posts it was not blocked, I forgot to set the
preferences when I subscribed to this group. Thank you for bringing it to my
attention. I had wondered why I had seen an increase in UCE recently
>
>> >I refuse to manually un-mangle an address, and I'm not the only one. If
>> >people can't play by the rules, I'm not interested in talking to them.
>>
>> If you are that pedantic, I reciprocate.
>
>Pedantic has absolutely nothing to do with it. Refusing to give in to
>rudeness has.
I'm sorry if you feel it is rude. IMV it is the lesser of two evils.
Mark L. Kahnt
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <3500ae06...@news.pipeline.com>,
> Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> > Opposition has remained relatively constant over the last 3 years.
> > There has been a big drop in amount of support for proposals. This
> > indicates mainly a dropoff in worthwhile proposals (or at least those
> > of drawing support).
>
> Or a dropoff in support for the whole process.
>
> Insert cool quote here.
There is also a consideration that the obvious, absolutely justified and
very easy to agree upon groups already exist - once you have sci.math,
you aren't going to find quite as many people jumping up and down
urgently driven to support a particularly narrower sub-topic such as
sci.math.actuarial.morbidity.inner-city - the topics of broader interest
have been created, and it is now a situation that proposals are of
narrower focus. You may see more interest on matters of broader reach in
comp.*, as that area tends to create new topics to discuss, but beyond
that, most new topics tend to be of regional interest, or are launched
in alt because many newbies don't seem to even leave alt for the Big 8.
Even after fifteen years on Usenet, most of my interest is in news.*,
alt.*, comp.*, a few local hierarchies and one group in rec.*
(bar...@bookpro.com knows which group that is).
Maybe the Big 8 doesn't really reach to most newbies anymore?
oliver1
Blade-Runner wrote:
>
> It was Sun, 22 Feb 1998 01:03:59 GMT. You remember? Course you do!
> si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) wrote some of this :
>
> >
> >~ Could be the system is self limiting? Who knows. we've never been here before.
> >~ Exciting though, isn't it?
> >
> >Yes, I get all that. But what I don't understand is why would anybody
> >pay for an internet account & only use email & the web ? If there was
> >no netnews I wouldn't bother myself.
>
> Me neither, but the fact is that the driving force behind the expansion of the
> Internet is the web. Which is perhaps just as well because imagine what would
> happen if everyone connected decided to use Usenet. Thankfully it won't happen
> because this medium takes some effort on the part of the participant.
> 'Me-too'ers are not going to get much out of it or stay long.
me too,..uhm, i mean...aw, fuck it all.
> I could never
> understand why ISP's worried about online content but apparently (so I am told)
> it is seen as important in choice of service provider. Go figure.
>
> > Ho hum. Perhaps i'm just weird...
>
> You might say that Simon, I couldn't possibly comment....... :o)
me,..oh yeah,...uhm, i could comment. or not.
oliver1,
the mad newgroupper,
nemesis of the anti-oliver group,
nemesis of all things idiotic,
holiday well-wisher, fuckmonkey magnet,
pain in the ass, with a god-complex,
banned from geocities, banned from tripod. <---
"...anger is an energy..."
use it wisely.
oliver1
alright rmgrouppers ! get to work !
: )
jAmES Lawson
jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
> But assuming that the number of "knowledgeable" people has remained
> constant, or at least not increasing as rapidly as the total Usenet
> population, that means that they're spread out over a larger number of
> newsgroups. That could mean that in any particular newsgroup where an
> RFD is likely to be posted, there are fewer people who would fully grasp
> its significance and take the initiative to follow the discussion and
> vote.
It would seem that the time for us to crawl into our little spaceship
and move onto the chosen land is nearly upon us...
Pack the newssevers momma! we're a comming!
jAmES
--
T e t r a c h l o r o m e t h a n e ------ CCl4 http://fish.ccl4.org/java/
* Get yourself a VIEWDATA client and get on! http://www.ccl4.org/viewdata/
dr_chasm #ccl4, #acorn, #zetnet - The Bitch Is Back - http://www.ccl4.org/
]![ The spearmint extra gave out a little muffled grunt.
jAmES Lawson
si...@star-one.org.uk (Simon Gray) wrote:
> Yes, I get all that. But what I don't understand is why would anybody
> pay for an internet account & only use email & the web ? If there was
> no netnews I wouldn't bother myself.
It's ignorance, they don't know it exists. Same goes for IRC, FTP,
Telnet...so many of the inexperienced net-newbies simply don't know what
they are or what they do...what they do know is that they can bang in
the little addresses that are printed on the back of their CD singles,
or in their favourite magazine and that they can send messages to mates
via those odd 'addresses' with @ symbols in.
Same ignorance goes for unna and unnc and alt.config and news.groups, etc.
People who don't know what usenet/netnews is aren't going to have a cats
in hell's chance of knowing anything about newsgroup creation and all its
bells and whistles.
> Just thinking aloud, since I know that that is indeed what the majority
> *do* pay for. Ho hum. Perhaps i'm just weird...
Oh yes. We're freaks, one and all.
jAmES
--
T e t r a c h l o r o m e t h a n e ------ CCl4 http://fish.ccl4.org/java/
* Get yourself a VIEWDATA client and get on! http://www.ccl4.org/viewdata/
dr_chasm #ccl4, #acorn, #zetnet - The Bitch Is Back - http://www.ccl4.org/
]![ Freddy Starr ate my lunchbox.
Joe Bernstein
Looks like another all-Big 8 subthread; note followups.
In article <slrn6euoof.a...@worf.netins.net>,
Jonathan Grobe <grobe...@netins.net> wrote:
> Colin, I know I published such a list of about 100 groups. This was
> in reaction to Jan Isley's proposal to set up this complex monitoring
> of Big 8 groups to find out which didn't have any traffic. Since
> Jan has left Usenet, this probably died (as I predicted it would).
Um. Actually, that was Jani Patokallio, not Jan Isley. Jani Patokallio
hasn't left Usenet (he voted on news.admin.nocem, as did Stephanie
but not Peter da Silva :-), but has left active news.* work. I was
told then that he had passed his existing projects on to another UVV
member; a couple of weeks ago, a different UVV member mentioned the
rmgroup program as a list of what that (different) person had to do.
It's apparently not actually dead, anyway, though I've no idea how
soon it could happen.
I found your list genuinely unreliable as I consulted it while trying
to clean up Tezcat's active last fall. You may recall that Jim Riley
posted a detailed commentary on it at the time. You did indicate that
your list was coming largely off the top of your head, so no big deal,
but this is an example of why I'd prefer the fancy software on the
whole.
> I don't think I have the list anymore (I think it happened before my
> last annual hard-disk crash) but you could search Dejanews, and
> news.groups for my name.
It's in DejaNews, as is Mr. Riley's reply.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and bookseller http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/
Speaking for myself alone j...@sfbooks.com jos...@tezcat.com
Sysop
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <slrn6evd8o.i...@nyx.nyx.net> of news.admin.hierarchies,
Yes, it is spelled out in elementary programming courses. That has been
part of my argument about the so-called 14 character rule. If it breaks
it, then it was broken to begin with.
John
- --
//------------------------------------------------------------------------
// mome...@apk.net sevot yhtils eht dna ,gillirb sawT`
// Marc...@momeraths.org ebaw eht ni elbmig dna eryg diD
// ,sevogorob eht erew ysmim llA
// .ebargtuo shtar emom eht dnA
// In case of stupidity, break glass.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
iQCVAwUBNPDCw7MHJ4yl8MPNAQHXAAQAqBuddOK7h/ZiabhBjIldAZHJVEX9eT5i
ymYIjZXkcG81GR5K1zCGiRwDyiZ/JK2XkemUGJJlUXE18y47mQ4WgM3jbPQWjq7+
EbpPPepBCJl7A6hhFi1BrikR0MPYzSEcqh+QQHkSMl2oKJjzWldt1h1YuPA838AH
jCrTke7QASE=
=LvJW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
abelard
On 21 Feb 1998 02:40:44 GMT, grobe...@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe)
typed:
>In article <34fca8e1...@news.demon.co.uk>, abelard wrote:
>>i think a better way to go is to start opening up
>> *and encouraging/advising* alternative hierarchies....
>>perhaps think of a group specifically designed
>> for advising and assisting those who wish to start
>> new hierarchies....
>
>news.admin.hierarchies was created partially for that purpose.
thanx...that was a vital bit of info i needed...
apologies to any who have told me before...
if they have...
added...
thanx also jon ivor!
regards.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
In article <slrn6f0u25.r...@worf.netins.net>,
Jonathan Grobe <grobe...@netins.net> wrote:
> Where do you get this weird idea everyone else is suffering for it?
> The only people affected at all are the person who munges his address
> (and he has made the decision he wants) and people who might want to
> email him.
And the people who have to wade through off-topic conversations between
people who use the newsgroup as a party line email system because one of
them has a bogus address.
Munged addresses are not the worst of it. A lot of people are now using
completely bogus addresses and no amount of unmunging will help.