filtering binaries in non binary groups?
Kelsey Cummings
good deal of optimization, was happy with its performance and since then
I've been running a a news server with alot less spam. One of it
filters is binaries in non-binary groups, I'm assuming it determines
this, since the group doesn't have *binaries* in its name. A few of my
customers have complained and want me to stop filtering the binaries
from these groups (ie, alt.multimedia.tk ) but I wonder if it is
againts general usenet charter to have a 'binary' group that doesn't
have binaries or binary in it's name. I'd much rather relay that on to
my users than figure out all such groups, reallocate spool space on the
server, and write an exception list for cleanfeed.
What is the 'official' usenet answer for this one?
Thanks in advance and sorry for the xposting.
--
Kelsey Cummings - k...@sonic.net sonic.net
System Administrator 300 B Street, Ste 101
707.522.1000 (Voice) Santa Rosa, CA 95404
707.547.2199 (Fax) http://www.sonic.net/
Fingerprint = 7F 59 43 1B 44 8A 0D 57 91 08 73 73 7A 48 90 C5
those who know me have no need of my name
[cleanfeed]
>filters is binaries in non-binary groups, I'm assuming it determines
>this, since the group doesn't have *binaries* in its name.
it's according to the pattern in bin_allowed, which defaults to
'\.binae?r|^alt\.sex\.pictures|^fur\.artwork'.
'|^alt\.anonymous\.messages$|^de\.alt\.dateien|^rec\.games\.bolo$'.
'|^comp\.security\.pgp\.test$|sfnet\.tiedostot'
if you enable block_binaries i suggest that you consider enabling
binaries_in_mod_groups as well, though not everyone agrees.
i also suggest setting max_encoded_lines to 50 or higher.
>I wonder if it is
>againts general usenet charter to have a 'binary' group that doesn't
>have binaries or binary in it's name.
generally it's frowned upon. but almost nothing is universal.
>What is the 'official' usenet answer for this one?
no such thing. do what you want. if binaries are arriving in a group,
e.g., alt.multimedia.tk, then your feeds/peers don't seem to have a
problem with it. enabling the cleanfeed filter will save you some spool
manipulation, it seems, but costs you customer satisfaction.
--
okay, have a sig then
Scott Doty
> Hello all, a few months ago I started running cleanfeed, and after a
> good deal of optimization, was happy with its performance and since then
> I've been running a a news server with alot less spam. One of it
> customers have complained and want me to stop filtering the binaries
> againts general usenet charter to have a 'binary' group that doesn't
> my users than figure out all such groups, reallocate spool space on the
> server, and write an exception list for cleanfeed.
> What is the 'official' usenet answer for this one?
Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet. In alt, all bets are off.
Sure, you can tell folks that their binary articles "will enjoy
better propagation if they keep them in alt.binaries.*," but that
doesn't keep them from doing it. The "policy" depends on the
individual group, as well as the de-facto policy of individual
news admins.
Some examples can be found in the "binaries okay" newsgroup list in cleanfeed:
### binaries allowed if groups match
'bin_allowed' => '\.binae?r|^alt\.sex\.pictures|^fur\.artwork'.
'|^alt\.anonymous\.messages$|^de\.alt\.dateien|^rec\.games\.bolo$'.
'|^comp\.security\.pgp\.test$|sfnet\.tiedostot', # '
The author's policy appears to be to make exceptions, rather than
hold fast to an "alt.binaries" rule.
(BTW, this is by no means a complete list -- for instance, there are a
couple of "alt.mag.*" groups that carry binaries, too.)
I'll track down the old Ultra archive of the INN setup, whose expire.ctl
contains a comprehensive list of groups outside of alt.binaries that
carry binaries.
-Scott
Adam H. Kerman
>Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet.
Why do people say this? It implies that no hierarchy, other than organic ones,
are part of Usenet either. This is just wrong.
Is there some document, somewhere, that says no other hierarchies can be
added to Usenet, or that no groups can be proposed outside of news.groups?
Not every newsgroup is Usenet: local newsgroups, groups started by newgroups
sent in error or by clueless news administrators, groups that are unusable
because no one is discussing the topic, groups filled with spam, etc.
What's Usenet? It is a medium of mass communication. It is the collection
of newsgroups widely created internationally (or within a region if not an
international hierarchy) in which messages are widely propogated, posters are
well-dispersed, and there is something to discuss that is vaguely related
to the group's original topic. If it's not an announce-only newsgroup,
it must also have sustainable threads on some subject vaguely related to
the original topic.
No, the top-level hierarchy is not what should determine what's in Usenet.
As long as it isn't meant to be a local hierarchy (articles that shouldn't
leave the network), then newsgroups it contains are potentially in Usenet.
ne...@plankton.shore.net
>
> >Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet.
>
> Why do people say this? It implies that no hierarchy, other than organic ones,
> are part of Usenet either. This is just wrong.
I think he's trying to say that groups in alt don't follow the rules. So
they don't necessarily have to have a name binary to store binaries.
The rest of them do have to follow the rules. Why? Because the people who
run news servers say so. You can always run your own server and do what
you like, but other servers won't accept the new groups.
-Ariel
shenanigander
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>Scott Doty <no-...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet.
>Why do people say this? It implies that no hierarchy, other than organic ones,
>are part of Usenet either. This is just wrong.
You may be inferring that, but it certainly doesn't imply that. The
reference to alt.* not being part of Usenet goes back to the old days
when Usenet was the Big 7 and alt.* wasn't, in fact, part of Usenet,
even though it was often carried and distributed in the same manner.
>Is there some document, somewhere, that says no other hierarchies can be
>added to Usenet, or that no groups can be proposed outside of news.groups?
There is no Cabal.
rone
--
WILL BATMAN TAKE PORT OUT, STARBOARD HOME, OR WILL HE STAY FOR UNLAWFUL CARNAL
KNOWLEDGE? WILL ROBIN ESCAPE THE CLUTCHES OF THE DASTARDLY FOLK ETYMOLOGER OR
WILL HE BE FORCED TO READ WILLIAM SAFIRE'S OLD NIXON SPEECHES? - Kibo
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet.
>>Why do people say this? It implies that no hierarchy, other than organic
>>ones, are part of Usenet either. This is just wrong.
>I think he's trying to say that groups in alt don't follow the rules. So
>they don't necessarily have to have a name binary to store binaries.
Fortunately, there are intelligent news administrators who won't create
stealth binary newsgroups and will drop binaries posted outside of the
conventional hierarchies.
>The rest of them do have to follow the rules. Why? Because the people who
>run news servers say so.
Few news administrators create new alt.* groups in response to any control
message these days, thank goodness. They enforce certain rules. For instance,
does any user claim a new group is useful? There are even a few who won't
create newsgroups if they weren't first proposed in alt.config.
alt.* isn't quite the free-for-all that you suggest it is. It depends on the
intent and concern of the news administrator. One thing that hasn't changed,
of course: Any idiot (whose news administrator allows it) can send a control
message in alt.*.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>Wellugh -- alt isn't really the Usenet.
>>Why do people say this? It implies that no hierarchy, other than organic
>>ones, are part of Usenet either. This is just wrong.
>You may be inferring that, but it certainly doesn't imply that. The
>reference to alt.* not being part of Usenet goes back to the old days
>when Usenet was the Big 7 and alt.* wasn't, in fact, part of Usenet,
>even though it was often carried and distributed in the same manner.
I thought alt.* predates the Great Renaming and thus predates the Big 7.
Some have suggested that "usenet" referred to the newsgroups and their articles
that were specifically authorized to be transported over the network news
backbone. If we accept that definition as static, then no bit of News, nowhere,
is part of "Usenet" today as none of those modems are in use, and no bit of the
old transport protocol is in use (with exceptions for isolated systems with
handfuls of users, or badly-connected systems).
alt.* has been around for a long time now. It would be nice if everyone accepts
that the definition of Usenet has changed a bit. The term "Usenet" today should
refer to the medium of communication, not any transport or distribution scheme.
>>Is there some document, somewhere, that says no other hierarchies can be
>>added to Usenet, or that no groups can be proposed outside of news.groups?
>There is no Cabal.
Well, update control.ctl and they'll let you back in.
Scott Doty
> alt.* has been around for a long time now. It would be nice if everyone
> accepts that the definition of Usenet has changed a bit. The term "Usenet"
> today should refer to the medium of communication, not any transport or
> distribution scheme.
I think the term "Usenet" refers to the groups created by Usenet voting.
-Scott
Adam H. Kerman
Don't know what you mean by "Usenet voting". Quite a few hierarchies, both
regional and international, have voting schemes that may or may not resemble
what's used in the Big 8. Other hierarchies have no form of voting. Voting
shouldn't be the criteria for deciding of a hierarchy is part of Usenet.