What are these "trolls" anyway?
Steven Lucas
renaming current terms....what are "trolls" anyway? Are these what most
newsgroup posters referred to as "twits"? And how'd "trolls" supercede
"twits"?
--
Crimefighter Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD
The COMPLETE Abermud List http://promisedland.mudservices.com
http://members.xoom.com/smlucas sml...@geocities.com
Jay Denebeim
Steven Lucas <sml...@ctnet.net> wrote:
>Well, somehow I keep running into new lingo or else someone keeps
>renaming current terms....what are "trolls" anyway? Are these what most
>newsgroup posters referred to as "twits"? And how'd "trolls" supercede
>"twits"?
The term 'troll' has been around a long time, as long as I've been on
usenet. Not the same thing as a twit. A troll is someone who trolls
the newsgroups trying to get a bite. They say outrageously stupid
things like "And how'd "trolls" supercede "twits"?" to see if someone
will reply.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
Reality is a point of view
| The term 'troll' has been around a long time, as long as I've been on
| usenet. Not the same thing as a twit. A troll is someone who trolls
| the newsgroups trying to get a bite. They say outrageously stupid
| things like "And how'd "trolls" supercede "twits"?" to see if someone
| will reply.
I thought that was baiting, while trolling was much more
specifically targeted. Lately it looks like the following is
not a common definition . . .
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
I first saw this posted to netcom.general and have been
posting copies ever since. Unfortunately I can't remember
the source. Please don't sue me for copyright infringement,
I would have if I could have. Anyway, on with the show . . .
YCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBT
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about Trolling, so here's a short
primer on what it is (and what it isn't).
Trolling is not new, though the arena (USENET) and the term (TROLLING) may be
new.
Trolling takes it's name from fishing, where one drags a baited fishing line
around where one believes there are fish to be caught. This is exactly what
a USENET troll is as well.
The Fish: In this case, the target is usually the biggest fish in the pond.
The lord (or lady, trolling isn't even the slightest bit sexist) of your
selected newsgroup. Some smug, self-righteous twit with delusions of
adequacy, who posts scathing followups to honest inquiries, never admits to
errors made or lack of knowledge. In short, the one person (rarely more than
one per group) that just annoys the hell out of you, even when he/she chances
to be right.
The Baited Line: This is a MOST carefully crafted post to your chosen group.
It contains absolutely no incorrect STATEMENTS, though it may contain outright
wrong or totally irrelevant QUESTIONS or OPINIONS. Nor should it contain any
misspellings, silly punctuation or B1FFisms. It is always completely on-topic
for the group, and is never completely inflamatory. Most people reading the
post would say to themselves: 'Hmm, I can answer this in email' or 'Really?
I didn't know that'.
The Catch: The Fish (see above) swallows the bait: Hook, line and sinker as
the saying goes. Posts a self-righteous, blithering followup correction to
the Troller's post.
The Notification: Troller posts: YHBT. YHL. (You have been trolled.),
(You have lost). With, possibly, pointers as to why 'the Fish' has just made
a complete ass of himself, if necessary. Rest of the newsgroup laughs itself
sick at the expense of the Fish.
That's it, the whole thing. There are variations, but they are all fairly
close to what I've just laid out. You cannot be trolled if you never post,
even if you reply to the troller in email. A troll is an invitation to
embarrass yourself to death in front of an entire newsgroup.
As you can see from the above:
Posting cat recipes to rec.pets.cats -- Flame Bait
Posting off topic to every USENET group -- Carpetbomb & Spam
Posting insults and/or threats -- Flaming and/or Stupid
Posting off-topic -- Clueless (or Flame Baiting)
Trolling takes real talent, and a good bit of creativity (practice helps too).
If you attempt a troll, and it doesn't work, here are some handy
troubleshooting tips.
Reaction: Possible Diagnosis:
--------------------- ----------------------
Nothing Fish is smarter than you.
Fish is on vacation.
You are already in Fish's killfile.
You were too subtle, Fish saw nothing to grab onto.
No one saw it, since you are in everyone's killfile.
Your post bombed, and never made it onto the net.
You get flamed You screwed up.
Flame War erupts You screwed up.
Whole group is terminally clueless.
You tried to troll alt.flame.
You are treated as You screwed up.
the new 'Fish'
Only followup is a See above under 'Nothing', with following addenda
sensible, helpful, You post didn't bomb, at least one person saw it.
intelligent post from You are being 'Meta-Trolled', read it carefully!
someone other than You screwed up.
the 'Fish'
Someone posts 'Ignore Your reputation precedes you.
him, he's a troller/ You have screwed up before.
flamer/loser/geek'
You start a thoughtful, You screwed up.
serious thread. Whole group is smarter than you.
You tried to troll in:
alt.religion.kibology
rec.org.mensa
alt.ted.frank.troll.troll.troll
alt.fan.* (many, but not all)
Warning signs:
Note that none of these is required, but presence of any should be viewed as
a definite 'clue':
It was posted to any of the above groups.
Author is ted frank, or kibo.
Followups To: alt.religion.kibology,alt.ted.frank.troll.troll.troll,*.test
Followups to hell and back.
Author is 'anon'.
YCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBTYCBT
Alexis Manning
says...
> Well, somehow I keep running into new lingo or else someone keeps
> renaming current terms....what are "trolls" anyway? Are these what most
> "twits"?
This must be a troll.
-- Alexis
Jay Denebeim
Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
>I thought that was baiting, while trolling was much more
>specifically targeted. Lately it looks like the following is
>not a common definition . . .
Generally speaking, when people say 'troll' nowadays they mean flame
baiting. Trolls in the traditional sense are pretty much extinct on
the net, the neverending September pretty much killed off that
endeavor.
Steven Lucas
I don't think so..."Reality is a point of view" gave a good enough description
of it for me to have for future reference.
Reality is a point of view
| I don't think so..."Reality is a point of view" gave a good enough description
| of it for me to have for future reference.
Two points. I wasn't the original author. It is not a common
definition.
What I find interesting is that threads like this can go on and
on while posts pointing out repeated failures of Moderation, of
months and maybe even years in length, meet with silence.
Paul Murray
>What I find interesting is that threads like this can go on and
>on while posts pointing out repeated failures of Moderation, of
>months and maybe even years in length, meet with silence.
I agree with you about the anti-fascist groups, something should be
done, and several suitable somethings have been proposed.
The delay over the anti-fascist groups is a failure of the
system, as is the delay over the home church result posting.
There doesn't seem a lot of point going on about it when I can't do
anything about it, it is a benevolent dictatorship, and we aren't the
dictators.
-Paul Murray
Reality is a point of view
| On 10 Mar 1999, Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
| >What I find interesting is that threads like this can go on and
| >on while posts pointing out repeated failures of Moderation, of
| >months and maybe even years in length, meet with silence.
|
| I agree with you about the anti-fascist groups, something should be
| done, and several suitable somethings have been proposed.
You do? I didn't realize I had something to agree with there. :)
The Moderation failures I was pointing out are for newsgroups
that, sold on Moderation without clarification of the risks
involved (as is common practice here, regrettably), already
exist (though in an unusable state).
Russ Allbery
> What I find interesting is that threads like this can go on and on while
> posts pointing out repeated failures of Moderation, of months and maybe
> even years in length, meet with silence.
There is a limit to how many times I can say "yes, I agree, this is a
problem" before I start feeling like I'm just repeating myself to no
purpose. If someone would like to say precisely what they think I should
be doing about it, I'd be interested. In the meantime, I've already said
that someone should write a FAQ on the pitfalls and caveats of moderation.
If I ever find the time, I'll do it myself. I'd recommend people not
waiting on that, given how little time I have at the moment.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery
> I'd say raising the technical requirements on Moderation would be a good
> step forward. Multiple moderators, multiple insertion points, maybe
> even multiple addresses (via relay or whatever).
Willing to write up a list of what you think is necessary, optionally but
ideally including information on how it can be obtained?
> BTW, is c.l.j.announce on your list of broken moderated newgroups? Is
> has been offline for many months.
Yup. It's on there.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> If someone would like to say precisely what they think I should be
>> doing about it, I'd be interested.
> Um, I did send you e-mail on this topic a couple of days ago Russ.
That wasn't a description of what I should do. *wry half-grin*
Reality is a point of view
| There is a limit to how many times I can say "yes, I agree, this is a
| problem" before I start feeling like I'm just repeating myself to no
| be doing about it, I'd be interested.
You have been baited. :)
I'd say raising the technical requirements on Moderation would
be a good step forward. Multiple moderators, multiple
insertion points, maybe even multiple addresses (via relay or
whatever).
BTW, is c.l.j.announce on your list of broken moderated
newgroups? Is has been offline for many months.
--
Jay Denebeim
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>If someone would like to say precisely what they think I should be
>doing about it, I'd be interested.
Um, I did send you e-mail on this topic a couple of days ago Russ.
Jay
Reality is a point of view
| > step forward. Multiple moderators, multiple insertion points, maybe
| > even multiple addresses (via relay or whatever).
|
| ideally including information on how it can be obtained?
What is missing from the "multiple" sentence? The problem with
Moderation as currently sold seems to be the technical
failures, with occasional enthusiam problema. Multiple
moderators and multiple insertion points seem to address the
common issues. Multiple addresses is a little extreme, and
complicates the more pressing issues.
Which makes sense, as Moderation is a one to many points of
failure USENET downgrade.
| > BTW, is c.l.j.announce on your list of broken moderated newgroups? Is
| > has been offline for many months.
| Yup. It's on there.
+----
How many months? I'm cautious about declaring more than a year
as I haven't paid enough attention and am too lazy about
checking archives.
Paul Murray
> +---- murra...@usa.net wrote (10 Mar 1999 12:14:08 GMT):
> | >What I find interesting is that threads like this can go on and
> | >on while posts pointing out repeated failures of Moderation, of
> | >months and maybe even years in length, meet with silence.
> | done, and several suitable somethings have been proposed.
I guess you're just an agreeable chap :)
I'm sure there was a Gary posting on the anti-facism groups thread,
aplogies for getting you mixed up..
>The Moderation failures I was pointing out are for newsgroups
>that, sold on Moderation without clarification of the risks
>involved (as is common practice here, regrettably), already
>exist (though in an unusable state).
Oh good, 'cos in that case I can agree with you on this as well :)
Many people are starting to see moderation as the default setting, at
least for certain types of group, which I disagree with. Moderation
(outside of announce-type groups) should be an exception step, not a
normal one.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>The Moderation failures I was pointing out are for newsgroups
>that, sold on Moderation without clarification of the risks
>involved (as is common practice here, regrettably), already
>exist (though in an unusable state).
I think it has to be expected that some moderated groups will die due
to moderator inaction/disinterest/vanishing/etc... A real problem is
that we don't have any process for dealing with this. Maybe any group
dead for more than X (=3?) months should be reverted to unmoderated,
or to a simple crosspost/spam modbot, until a suitable replacement can
be made. With the centralisation of moderation address via the uunet
relays, this is something that could just be done, the technical
ability exists.
-Paul Murray
Russ Allbery
> What is missing from the "multiple" sentence? The problem with
> Moderation as currently sold seems to be the technical failures, with
> occasional enthusiam problema. Multiple moderators and multiple
> insertion points seem to address the common issues. Multiple addresses
> is a little extreme, and complicates the more pressing issues.
Multiple insertion points I provide for the asking to any moderator who
can manage a static host to connect from, and there are others of us who
can manage to provide that without even that constraint. If any moderator
out there doesn't already have multiple injection points in the case of
problems, ask on moderators list.
Multiple moderators is definitely the hard part. I wish the UVM would
have gone somewhere; I think that would have been a good way of providing
emergency backup moderators for various groups.
> How many months? I'm cautious about declaring more than a year as I
> haven't paid enough attention and am too lazy about checking archives.
The information I have, which I haven't personally double-checked, says
last posting date was around August of 1997.
Tim Skirvin
>Multiple moderators is definitely the hard part. I wish the UVM would
>have gone somewhere; I think that would have been a good way of providing
>emergency backup moderators for various groups.
Don't count me out yet. Summer is ahead...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>
Reality is a point of view
| The information I have, which I haven't personally double-checked, says
| last posting date was around August of 1997.
Wow, over a year, halfway to two. I wonder if any Moderation
sales brouchures will include that, as well as other groups . . .
Jay Denebeim
Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
>Wow, over a year, halfway to two. I wonder if any Moderation
>sales brouchures will include that, as well as other groups . . .
Oh come on Gary, you know as well as everyone that this was a special
case. There are no controls in the big-8 to stop loony tune
proponants from proposing groups or passing them if they have enough
loony tune friends.
The only way around that is to have a big-8 newsgroup committee that
is empowered to trash bad proposals. Somehow I don't think you'd like
that much.
Robb Shecter
> Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
>
> > BTW, is c.l.j.announce on your list of broken moderated newgroups? Is
> > has been offline for many months.
>
> Yup. It's on there.
Hi,
I was browsing this newsgroup because I was about to post something asking
what the formal process is for fixing c.l.j.a. And this thread caught my
eye. Coincidence.
I've volunteered to moderate it. But whatever happens, it'd be good to get
things fixed so that we don't have this problem again of the group
disappearing. I personally would just like to see it get used and reduce
traffic in cljp.
(I'm also in a research group in the area of "content engineering", working
with metadata, xml, semantic networks, etc. It'd be interesting to use a
well-defined set of metadata tags in the clja postings or subject lines, to
allow indexes and queries to be done on the contents of the postings.
Something inconspicuous for human readers that'd allow information systems to
perform more interesting searches than "full text search". This could then be
cross-referenced with other open, well-structured info resources, like the
"NewHoo RDF".)
I just got e-mail from the current moderator, by the way, advising about the
approved header, etc. The only question I still have about the technical part
is how a message gets propogated with the e-mail address for moderation. (So
that posts to clja get re-routed.)
- Robb
Reality is a point of view
| In article <7c850v$l8i$1...@remarQ.com>,
| Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
|
| >Wow, over a year, halfway to two. I wonder if any Moderation
| >sales brouchures will include that, as well as other groups . . .
|
| Oh come on Gary, you know as well as everyone that this was a special
| case. There are no controls in the big-8 to stop loony tune
| proponants from proposing groups or passing them if they have enough
| loony tune friends.
|
| The only way around that is to have a big-8 newsgroup committee that
| is empowered to trash bad proposals. Somehow I don't think you'd like
| that much.
Let me guess, flame bait because you don't have anything useful
to say about the failings of Moderation?
Reality is a point of view
| I just got e-mail from the current moderator, by the way, advising about the
| approved header, etc.
Did he mention why c.l.j.announce has been broken?
Jay Denebeim
Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
>Let me guess, flame bait because you don't have anything useful to
>say about the failings of Moderation?
Um, no. Just an observation. You probably wouldn't like it if we did
the only thing that could fix this, put a formal comitte in charge of
the Big-8. They could then make sure that every newsgroup had a
moderator, any newsgroup they thought we needed would be created, ones
with insufficient traffic would be deleted, and so on.
Are you saying that you *would* like something like that?
Reality is a point of view
| In article <7c9jcd$9s5$1...@remarQ.com>,
| Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
|
| >Let me guess, flame bait because you don't have anything useful to
| >say about the failings of Moderation?
|
| Um, no. Just an observation. You probably wouldn't like it if we did
| the only thing that could fix this, put a formal comitte in charge of
| the Big-8. They could then make sure that every newsgroup had a
| moderator, any newsgroup they thought we needed would be created, ones
| with insufficient traffic would be deleted, and so on.
|
| Are you saying that you *would* like something like that?
Do you still beat your dog?
You probably have no clue about what I think, given the above.
As you don't seem to have anything useful to contribute here
feel free to continue this digression in mail.
Paul Murray
>>sales brouchures will include that, as well as other groups . . .
>Oh come on Gary, you know as well as everyone that this was a special
>case. There are no controls in the big-8 to stop loony tune
>proponants from proposing groups or passing them if they have enough
>loony tune friends.
>The only way around that is to have a big-8 newsgroup committee that
>is empowered to trash bad proposals. Somehow I don't think you'd like
>that much.
However, what we could (and should IMO) be doing is being less trigger
happy in presenting moderation as a good solution for a particular
proposal, and pointing out the flawas as well. When groups such as
sci.physics.vacuum get proposed as moderated then the perception of
moderation out there is wrong.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
>> > BTW, is c.l.j.announce on your list of broken moderated newgroups? Is
>> > has been offline for many months.
>> Yup. It's on there.
>what the formal process is for fixing c.l.j.a. And this thread caught my
>eye. Coincidence.
>I just got e-mail from the current moderator, by the way, advising about the
>is how a message gets propogated with the e-mail address for moderation. (So
>that posts to clja get re-routed.)
If you have the blessing of the current moderator, then it should be
as simple as he sending a request to tale to change the group
moderation address to point to you instead.
-Paul Murray
Robb Shecter
> If you have the blessing of the current moderator, then it should be
> as simple as he sending a request to tale to change the group
> moderation address to point to you instead.
>
I'm attaching the e-mail I got yesterday from the current moderator. He says he's
going out of town for a week. I guess that when he gets back he can change this
moderation address. Do you know technically how this address is changed? I
haven't seen this info anywhere. Possibly because it could be misused?
At any rate, once things are running smoothly, I'd like to set up an e-mail account
to which several people share the password. This would become the default address
that posts to clja get bounced to. Not necessarily for group moderation, but so
that we don't have the current problem again - if something happens to me, or if I
go on vacation, another person can easily step in and handle things, either
temporarily, or until another permanent moderator is found. (Note: I'm not
planning to disappear any time soon! :) We should learn from experience, though.
- Robb
-----------------------------------
Subject:
Re: What's up with clja? (was Re: Job ads in Java newsgroups)
Date:
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:36:51 +0100 (MET)
From:
Urban D Mueller <mue...@relog.ch>
To:
she...@darmstadt.gmd.de (Robb Shecter)
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm volunteering to take over moderation of comp.lang.java.announce, and was
> nominated by Peter van der Linden. Please let me know if you need any more
> info, and how we should arrange the change.
Sorry about the late reaction, swamped with email. Basically, you can
take over immediately; all you have to do is add Approved:-headers to
the postings and post them. And of course post a few informational
postings from time to time, giving your email address. I'll be off for
about a week, but then I can supply you with more information. I have
created a set of scripts that automate the handling and archiving of
postings in a special format which I thought would be useful; if you
want to keep this format, we'll discuss more later.
-Urban
Robb Shecter
> +---- she...@darmstadt.gmd.de wrote (Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:48:17 +0100):
> | I just got e-mail from the current moderator, by the way, advising about the
> | approved header, etc.
> +----
>
> Did he mention why c.l.j.announce has been broken?
>
Uhh - no, I guess it just hasn't been getting done.
- Robb
Paul Murray
>Paul Murray wrote:
>> If you have the blessing of the current moderator, then it should be
>> as simple as he sending a request to tale to change the group
>> moderation address to point to you instead.
>I'm attaching the e-mail I got yesterday from the current moderator.
>He says he's going out of town for a week. I guess that when he gets
>back he can change this moderation address. Do you know technically
>how this address is changed? I haven't seen this info anywhere.
>Possibly because it could be misused?
News servers no longer mail posts to moderated newsgroup directly to
the moderator, instead they send to a relay address hosted at
uu.net. This address is then configured to pass the mail onto the
actual moderator. Thus there is a single point at which the
moderation address can be changed. The problem with converting
moderated groups generally is that it is hard to convince the owner of
the relay database to change the address, but if you ahev the blessing
of the current moderator that shouldn't be a problem.
> From:
> Urban D Mueller <mue...@relog.ch>
> To:
> she...@darmstadt.gmd.de (Robb Shecter)
>> I'm volunteering to take over moderation of comp.lang.java.announce, and was
>> nominated by Peter van der Linden. Please let me know if you need any more
>> info, and how we should arrange the change.
>Sorry about the late reaction, swamped with email. Basically, you can
>take over immediately; all you have to do is add Approved:-headers to
>the postings and post them. And of course post a few informational
>postings from time to time, giving your email address. I'll be off for
>about a week, but then I can supply you with more information. I have
>created a set of scripts that automate the handling and archiving of
>postings in a special format which I thought would be useful; if you
>want to keep this format, we'll discuss more later.
This sounds more like he is authorising you to be a 'pretend'
moderator, in that if you approve articles to the group he won't
cancel them. In order to get the articles automatically sent to you,
he has to contact tale and ask for the moderation address to be
changed.
-Paul Murray
Reality is a point of view
| News servers no longer mail posts to moderated newsgroup directly to
| the moderator, instead they send to a relay address hosted at
| uu.net.
What happens when uu.net is down or unreachable?
Andrew Gierth
> +---- murra...@usa.net wrote (12 Mar 1999 13:07:40 GMT):
> | News servers no longer mail posts to moderated newsgroup directly to
> | the moderator, instead they send to a relay address hosted at
> | uu.net.
> +----
Reality> What happens when uu.net is down or unreachable?
$ host moderators.uu.net
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by relay.eu.net
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by rutgers.edu
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by ucsd.edu
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.uu.net
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by agate.berkeley.edu
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by funet.fi
moderators.uu.net mail is handled (pri=10) by moderated.news.pipex.net
$ host moderators.isc.org
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by isgate.is
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.uu.net
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by briar.org
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by moderated.news.pipex.net
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by relay.eu.net
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by rutgers.edu
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by ucsd.edu
moderators.isc.org mail is handled (pri=10) by chx400.switch.ch
--
Andrew.
Reality is a point of view
| >>>>> "Reality" == Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
| > +---- murra...@usa.net wrote (12 Mar 1999 13:07:40 GMT):
| > | News servers no longer mail posts to moderated newsgroup directly to
| > | the moderator, instead they send to a relay address hosted at
| > | uu.net.
| > +----
|
| Reality> What happens when uu.net is down or unreachable?
|
| $ host moderators.uu.net
Ah, moderators.uu.net. Having traced routes through a clunky
uu.net more than once those aliases are very reassuring.
On the list of broken Moderations I'm curious how many are
handled by a single Moderator.
Jay Denebeim
Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
>What happens when uu.net is down or unreachable?
*seesh* Gary, you've been bitching about moderation for years and you
don't even know how it works?
FYI the official moderation site is now moderators.isc.org, the
moderators.uu.net still works, but that's just a duplicate. Anyway,
if you'd check with dig, you'd see that this actually works out to be
around a dozen sites all over the world. It's not possible to take
them all out, not if the internet is up.
Russ Allbery
> On the list of broken Moderations I'm curious how many are handled by a
> single Moderator.
The vast majority.
Reality is a point of view
| Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> writes:
|
| > On the list of broken Moderations I'm curious how many are handled by a
| > single Moderator.
|
| The vast majority.
Looks like a requirements bug is beginning to reveal itself.
If uu.net DNS doesn't go offline and many Moderators with many
insertion points avoid the workload/disinterest/motives issues
maybe Moderation isn't as risky to USENET as it has been.
Russ Allbery
> If uu.net DNS doesn't go offline and many Moderators with many insertion
> points avoid the workload/disinterest/motives issues maybe Moderation
> isn't as risky to USENET as it has been.
Most people point at moderators.isc.org these days.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS-EXT.VIX.COM 204.152.184.64
NS2.GNAC.COM 209.182.195.77
Registrant:
Vixie Enterprises (VIX-DOM)
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94062
Domain Name: VIX.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Vixie, Paul (PV15) pa...@VIX.COM
I'll worry about a lot of things before I'm going to worry about a DNS
server run by Paul Vixie going off-line. :)
Russ Allbery
> I've volunteered to moderate it. But whatever happens, it'd be good to
> get things fixed so that we don't have this problem again of the group
> disappearing. I personally would just like to see it get used and
> reduce traffic in cljp.
Excellent; thank you very much for volunteering.
> I just got e-mail from the current moderator, by the way, advising about
> the approved header, etc. The only question I still have about the
> technical part is how a message gets propogated with the e-mail address
> for moderation. (So that posts to clja get re-routed.)
In case someone hasn't already answered this, posts to the newsgroup are
sent to comp-lang-j...@moderators.isc.org and relayed from there
to whatever the registered submission address for the newsgroup is. The
person who controls what those submission addresses are is David Lawrence
(moderator...@isc.org). Once you've received confirmation from the
current moderator that they're ready to hand over the group, contact him
and he can switch the alias.
Please, if possible, find another person who's willing to help you or at
least be an emergency backup for you, just in case, and work out some way
of sending the posts to that person for handling if you can't handle them
for a while. That way we prevent this same thing from happening again.
Russ Allbery
> | I'll worry about a lot of things before I'm going to worry about a DNS
> | server run by Paul Vixie going off-line. :)
> +----
> Wasn't he responsible, directly or indirectly, for the Moderated DNS
> newsgroups that went offline for months?
I honestly don't know; I don't follow those newsgroups, and therefore am
not sure who's responsible for them. I know that at least one of the DNS
groups is actually a gated mailing list, since that's where bind-users
goes. comp.protocols.dns.ops currently has no articles on my spool.
But that's sort of beside the point; I didn't say that I trusted Vixie
(more than any other generally clued individual) to run a moderated
newsgroup or a mailing list. I was specifically talking about running a
DNS server, a subject on which he's probably the world expert. I have no
reason to believe that he knows anything more about moderation or the
reliability thereof than any other Usenet user who's been around for a
long time (and knowing how busy he is, I would guess that the actual
gatewaying or whatnot, if vix.com is involved, is probably being done by
someone other than him at the moment).
> As for points of failure, does he control all the hops between his DNS
> servers and everyone else on the net?
No, I don't think anyone can claim that. But mail systems are also
designed to deal with temporary DNS outages. Seriously, there are a lot
of points of failure that I'd worry about before I'd worry about the DNS
servers behind moderators.isc.org. I don't recall them ever failing; I do
recall various other things happening to the relay system from time to
time (like relay sites that are slow to update or are having various
problems, generally quite short-lived).
Reality is a point of view
| Most people point at moderators.isc.org these days.
OK, two different points of failure.
| I'll worry about a lot of things before I'm going to worry about a DNS
| server run by Paul Vixie going off-line. :)
+----
Wasn't he responsible, directly or indirectly, for the
Moderated DNS newsgroups that went offline for months? As for
points of failure, does he control all the hops between his DNS
servers and everyone else on the net?
--