RFD: delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
Graham Drabble
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
Newsgroup line:
uk.religion.jewish Discussion of the jewish faith (Moderated)
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
It has long been custom within uk.* to check for groups that are not
being used and then to remove them. By doing this we keep the number of
dead groups down increasing the chances that someone stumbling across a
group will find it useful.
An analysis of the posts since 1st July 2009 shows no posts to the
group. I have tried to post to the group asking if there is any
interest in the group, the article was neither approved not returned to
me by the moderators. An attempt to contact the moderators using the
request address bounced since the domain was non-existant. I have
therefore concluded that this group is dead.
Whilst I have proposed this as a removal should the response to this
show that there is demand and that it is only the lack of a functioning
moderator that is causing the issue I will happily withdraw this whilst
other solutions are discussed,
CHARTER uk.religion.jewish-remove
This newsgroup is intended as a general discussion area for UK Jews, and
as an information resource about Judaism in the UK.
Welcome
Non-jews are welcome to join us to ask bona-fide questions, and to
discover information about Judaism. Please read the entire charter BEFORE
posting.
Language
All postings should be in English. Where Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino or
Aramaic words or phrases are used these should be translated. Eg:- Brit
Milah [circumcision].
Shabbat Observance
Shabbat [the Jewish sabbath] begins 18 minutes before local sunset on
friday and ends after darkness on saturday. Please do not post within
these times. The saving of life is exempt from this restriction.
Discussion topics
On-topic discussions include:
* Discussions regarding judaism from a UK perspective.
* Announcements of specific interest to UK Jews.
* Announcement of Jewish and Interfaith events.
* General chatter and schmoozing by UK Jews.
* Providing information about Judaism to any interested parties.
Prohibited postings
The following are considered to be off-topic and are NOT permitted.
* Crosspostings other than announcements of bona-fide interfaith
events which may be crossposted to all uk.religion newsgroups.
* Attacks against Judaism or Jewish practices. Note that this
restriction is not intended to inhibit valid debate within a Jewish
context.
* Missionary postings and proselyting of any kind.
* Any posting by, or about, so-called 'jews for jesus', 'messianic
jews' and similar groups who are actually christian and should use
alt.messianic or uk.religion.christian.
* Postings denying the holocaust.
* Any material intended to be offensive to Jews including antisemitic
material.
* Advertising in general except for SHORT announcements of special
interest to UK Jews.
* Flames and ad-hominem attacks of any kind.
* Binary postings of any kind including any postings which are not
readable in plain language English.
Information
A FAQ will be regularly posted which will contain information about where
to find Jewish resources on the net.
Moderation submission address
uk.religion.jewish is moderated by a robo-moderator which automatically
approves postings from known users. Crossposted messages and messages
from unknown users are forwarded to a human moderator.
To reach the human moderator directly, use the email address
uk-religion-j...@usenet.org.uk
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until November 21st) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.religion.jewish
Proponent:
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBSvnWOWOfGXkh8vHZAQKXIgP/TPvDyT1yB8O5RGFS0anmNUKqYYw0c2Ew
9NI+diCHnM3Wl4ZXvQdXJqEkVpt+cePDekApFGb+E2uoKcXnK90ACyt1ivazcNak
4FSVwkFu+hgZB9jtbELuCn2/YoOPW7twVcAcWYSGsn1x51sinttzOpeeGAi8I5YM
sR3T4nofgaE=
=Jtl1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Bristow
m <nos...@notnominet.name> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:08:05 +0000, Graham Drabble
><usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
>
> I'd support this removal.
I'd both support this removal, and support it proceeding with a
fast track - assuming no potential users are shaken out by the RFD
process, of course.
--
Please help Imogen May keep talking - www.imogenmay.com
Owen Rees
in <slrnhfo4p5...@cheddar.urgle.com>:
>I'd both support this removal, and support it proceeding with a
>fast track - assuming no potential users are shaken out by the RFD
>process, of course.
Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
I support the removal.
--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com>
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:52:37 +0000, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote
>in <slrnhfo4p5...@cheddar.urgle.com>:
>
>>I'd both support this removal, and support it proceeding with a
>>fast track - assuming no potential users are shaken out by the RFD
>>process, of course.
>
>Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
>willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
>
>I support the removal.
As do I.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
jms
Hello maggot.
Chased up anyone's personal information this week?
What do you do with it when you get it? (Apart from warning people
that they need to be careful on the way home from the pub once you
know where they drink and where they live)
Any chance of you keeping your half of the deal which we had?
I guess not - you are still wanting to prove that you just cannot be
trusted.
Mike Bristow
Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
> willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
dropping support for the rmgroup.
Cheers,
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> In article <oqvof5d1jp79mh8bh...@4ax.com>,
> Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
> > willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
>
> Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
> to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
> dropping support for the rmgroup.
>
As the proponent for the creation of uk.religion.jewish and the
original moderator I can confirm that the group was never very
popular. By the time I handed over to a new moderation team it
was already in terminal decline.
The uk.religion.* hierarchy was created as a batch of 8 groups, of which
only uk.religion.christian has significant traffic to justify its
existance.
uk.religion.islam contains only crossposted diatribes from assorted
nutjobs and the remainer have no significant usage.
In view of the above I support the rmgroup of uk.religion.jewish and
also suggest a cleanup of uk.religion.* leaving only uk.religion.christian
Charles Lindsey
>In article <oqvof5d1jp79mh8bh...@4ax.com>,
> Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
>> willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
>Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
>to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
>dropping support for the rmgroup.
Alternatively, it would be possible to de-moderate the group.
But it would still need people who wanted to read it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Jim A
> In <slrnhg275...@cheddar.urgle.com> Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> writes:
>
>> In article <oqvof5d1jp79mh8bh...@4ax.com>,
>> Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
>>> willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
>
>> Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
>> to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
>> dropping support for the rmgroup.
>
> Alternatively, it would be possible to de-moderate the group.
> But it would still need people who wanted to read it.
It's the people who would want to write to it that's the main problem
though isn't it ... consider that and it's guaranteed there will be
nobody wanting to read it.
Mark Goodge
typed:
Indeed. There'a very good reason why the only thriving uk.religion.*
group is moderated, and why *.religion.* groups across Usenet are
either moderated or permanent flamefests.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >>>> Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
> >>>> willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
> >>
> >>> Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
> >>> to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
> >>> dropping support for the rmgroup.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, it would be possible to de-moderate the group.
> >> But it would still need people who wanted to read it.
> >
> >It's the people who would want to write to it that's the main problem
> >though isn't it ... consider that and it's guaranteed there will be
> >nobody wanting to read it.
>
> Indeed. There'a very good reason why the only thriving uk.religion.*
> group is moderated, and why *.religion.* groups across Usenet are
> either moderated or permanent flamefests.
The simple fact is that there are not enough uk jews on usenet to
sustain even a simple discussion. There were never more than a dozen
users and usenet in general has seriously declined in the intervening
years.
Graham Drabble
in news:74k8g59h3mctpptir...@news.markshouse.net:
> Indeed. There'a very good reason why the only thriving
> uk.religion.* group is moderated, and why *.religion.* groups
> across Usenet are either moderated or permanent flamefests.
Given the contents of this thread I think it's quite clear that this
group is dead, I've seen noone who says they want to read or moderate
it.
Given that I intend to apply for a fast track on 20th.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Pedt
20:32:05 on Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
wibbled
>On 18 Nov 2009 Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote
>in news:74k8g59h3mctpptir...@news.markshouse.net:
>
>
>> Indeed. There'a very good reason why the only thriving
>> uk.religion.* group is moderated, and why *.religion.* groups
>> across Usenet are either moderated or permanent flamefests.
>
>Given the contents of this thread I think it's quite clear that this
>group is dead, I've seen noone who says they want to read or moderate
>it.
I'd agree. Held off saying +1 for removal in case something came out of
the woodwork for both moderator and users from the RFD. Nowts happened
so it's dead.
>
>Given that I intend to apply for a fast track on 20th.
>
Looks sensible to me.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>uk.religion.islam contains only crossposted diatribes from assorted
>nutjobs and the remainer have no significant usage.
Bloody hell, it is, too! What a cesspit. Should that be rmgrouped
too, or is it better to keep it as a sewer to drain all that shit from
the rest of Her Majesty's intertubes?
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
Henry Goodman
news:Kt9BE...@clerew.man.ac.uk...
> In <slrnhg275...@cheddar.urgle.com> Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com>
> writes:
>
>>In article <oqvof5d1jp79mh8bh...@4ax.com>,
>> Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Even if there were potential users, there would have to be people
>>> willing to become moderators for the group to be viable.
>
>>Of course: but moderators without users are pointless. I'd want
>>to see that there are people who wanted to _use_ the group before
>>dropping support for the rmgroup.
>
> Alternatively, it would be possible to de-moderate the group.
> But it would still need people who wanted to read it.
>
>
Hi Charles (remember Orion)
I used to post to this group fairly regularly (you will find me among those
who posted in 2005) and would do so again if others do. I am currently one
of the moderators of soc.culture.jewish.moderated, a similar group but
world-wide and would be willing to moderate uk.religion.jewish if nobody
else can be found and there are other users. There is currently a thread in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated discussing this proposal.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Graham Drabble
news:P5UOm.53012$fF2....@newsfe26.ams2:
> I used to post to this group fairly regularly (you will find me
> among those who posted in 2005) and would do so again if others
> do. I am currently one of the moderators of
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated, a similar group but world-wide and
> would be willing to moderate uk.religion.jewish if nobody else can
> be found and there are other users. There is currently a thread in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated discussing this proposal.
As I've just posted in soc.culture.jewish.moderated, it is not my
intention to remove a group that is wanted and will be used. If there
are posts from others saying that they would join you I would happily
withdraw the fast-track[0] and hand the RFD over to someone to propose
a change of moderators.
[0] Not sure that there's an official process for doing that but I
suspect an objection from the proponent saying they had changed their
mind would probably be considered "well founded".
Molly Mockford
>As I've just posted in soc.culture.jewish.moderated, it is not my
>intention to remove a group that is wanted and will be used. If there
>are posts from others saying that they would join you I would happily
>withdraw the fast-track[0] and hand the RFD over to someone to propose
>a change of moderators.
>
>[0] Not sure that there's an official process for doing that but I
>suspect an objection from the proponent saying they had changed their
>mind would probably be considered "well founded".
Speaking as an individual Committee member but not on behalf of the
Committee, I would be very dubious indeed about accepting as
well-founded an objection based on nothing more than a change of mind.
(It would, of course, count towards the six, if appropriate.)
However, I think that I would probably consider an objection (whether
from the proponent or anyone else) made on the grounds that plans were
in place for a serious attempt to revive the group, with some supporting
evidence such as the names of volunteers prepared to take over as
moderators, as being well-founded.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Hi Charles (remember Orion)
> I used to post to this group fairly regularly (you will find me among those
> who posted in 2005) and would do so again if others do. I am currently one
> of the moderators of soc.culture.jewish.moderated, a similar group but
> world-wide and would be willing to moderate uk.religion.jewish if nobody
> else can be found and there are other users. There is currently a thread in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated discussing this proposal.
Whilst I would not object to your proposals I am concerned that the very
low numbers that the group attracted throughout its life does not bode
well. What purpose would this serve which is not already served by
soc.culture.jewish.moderated ?. Are there really enough users to generate
the traffic required for an active group ?.
Graham Drabble
news:Acws8C$NDDD...@molly.mockford:
> Speaking as an individual Committee member but not on behalf of
> the Committee, I would be very dubious indeed about accepting as
> well-founded an objection based on nothing more than a change of
> mind. (It would, of course, count towards the six, if
> appropriate.)
Possibly however a request to withdraw the fast-track because a debate
has become apparant that wasn't apparent initially may be allowed.
There's limited precedent for this, Andy Mabbet withdraw a CFV on the
basis that something proved controversial after the vote started.
Message-ID: <-Notice-F...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
That said, unless I see a lot more support posted in unnc this is
academic anyway.
Henry Goodman
news:hehni4$nt6$2...@news.albasani.net...
How many users are needed to make a group viable?
I have just resubscribed to the group after a considerable absence. I find
the following
(a) No posts since 2005
(b) there were about a dozen users in that year
I think there may have been only one moderator and he must have left/gone
away so nobody could post. Certainly posts submitted now go nowhere.
Is there standard moderator software for uk newsgroups?
Henry Goodman
news:Xns9CCDB9A98D0A2gr...@drabble.me.uk...
I don't think your post reached soc.culture.jewish moderated.
Graham Drabble
> I don't think your post reached soc.culture.jewish moderated.
It should be in the moderation queue, I've had the ack back from your
mod software.
Submission ID: 425119
Henry Goodman
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
"Graham Drabble" <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in message
news:rfd1-uk.religion.jewish-remove-20091110210805$63...@gradwell.net...
kat
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> said
> Is anyone listening. Can I post this? This is a test
I think you passed.:-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Henry Goodman
news:7n7bm2F...@mid.individual.net...
here.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Yes, we can hear you.
soc.culture.jewish.moderated does not allow crossposting so you should
ask those discussing this subject there to join us here.
Denis McMahon
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7n7bm2F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> said
>>> Is anyone listening. Can I post this? This is a test
>>
>> I think you passed.:-)
> No I didn't. I thought I was posting to uk.religion.jewish but it ended
> up here.
Happens maybe because you replied to an x-posted RFD which had
follow-ups set to unnc.
There's a reason for that. The original rfd is posted to the group in
question. It directs discussion of the matter to here (unnc) which is
the correct forum for discussion of the RFD.
Then people using the group who respond to the rfd get their comments
posted here, and here is where the decision making process occurs, in so
much as there is one.
Rgds
Denis
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7n7bm2F...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> said
> >> Is anyone listening. Can I post this? This is a test
> >
> > I think you passed.:-)
> >
> >
> > --
> > kat
> > >^..^<
> No I didn't. I thought I was posting to uk.religion.jewish but it ended up
> here.
A quick look at the headers of your original messages clearly shows
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
Looks like you may have had a senior moment B-).
kat
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> said
> "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7n7bm2F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> said
>>> Is anyone listening. Can I post this? This is a test
>>
>> I think you passed.:-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> kat
>> >^..^<
> No I didn't. I thought I was posting to uk.religion.jewish but it
> ended up here.
Ok. You failed!
--
kat
>^..^<
Charles Lindsey
>How many users are needed to make a group viable?
>I have just resubscribed to the group after a considerable absence. I find
>the following
>(a) No posts since 2005
>(b) there were about a dozen users in that year
A dozen posters might well be enough for a viable group.
>I think there may have been only one moderator and he must have left/gone
>away so nobody could post. Certainly posts submitted now go nowhere.
>Is there standard moderator software for uk newsgroups?
It is up to each moderator. {R} provides a service which some moderators use.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net>
>Is anyone listening. Can I post this? This is a test
Yes, just not in the group you thought.
Henry: do you think the uk jewish group is resurrectable (I'm atheist,
forgive me my small jokes, I am sure you can make jokes at my expense
too and welcome them). The thing I am not getting is why
uk.religion.jewish should be brought back to life (yes, I know) if
soc.religion.jewish is working for you?
Is there something specific about uk.* judaism that needs a group of its
own?
I can understand that some people might be overwhelmed by the judaism in
other countries ("hey, I'm a jew not an Israeli", "I'm a merkin, who you
callin' an arab?" etc) but do uk jewish people really want a "place of
their own" ?
They aren't showing up much apart from you, dear. I believe your heart
is good but misguided. I think the group should be allowed to quietly
go, many will follow, it isn't personal, promise, just tidying up.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Henry Goodman
news:xxDKVqb6qtDLFwbS@[127.0.0.1]...
You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and there
were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish community but it's
all probably too late now. I will still like to know what happened in
September 2004 to cause it to suddenly die. The problem with
soc.culture.jewish.moderated is that it is totally dominated by Americans
(like most of usenet) and there are different issues in the UK.
Rob Morley
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and
> there were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish
> community but it's all probably too late now. I will still like to
> know what happened in September 2004 to cause it to suddenly die.
> The problem with soc.culture.jewish.moderated is that it is totally
> dominated by Americans (like most of usenet) and there are different
> issues in the UK.
It seems to that that it would be a shame to pronounce a group dead if
it's been dormant because of absentee moderators, when there are people
willing to give it another chance.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and there
> were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish community but it's
> all probably too late now. I will still like to know what happened in
> September 2004 to cause it to suddenly die. The problem with
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated is that it is totally dominated by Americans
> (like most of usenet) and there are different issues in the UK.
The final death of the newsgroup came when the moderator who was hosting
the moderation system changed jobs, working far from home and leaving
the system to slowly fall apart in his absence until he could get home
and revive it again. The real story, however, is longer
and more complex. The decline had been a long tale of falling
interest in a group which had never achieved more than token bursts of
popularity punctuated by long silences. The moderation team had
drifted apart and the remainder were disillusioned by spending time
every day deleting spam in the hope of finding an occasional on topic
item from a new user who had not already been whitelisted.
When the moderation system finally vanished and the owner could not
be contacted it would have been possible to build a replacement but
despite my offer of hosting there was a total lack of enthusiasm.
I would not presume to stand in your way if you chose to try reviving
the group but in my humble opinion such an effort would be doomed to
the same eventual fate after a few months of initial enthusiasm.
Your call.
Dick Gaughan
20:49:19 -0000, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and there
>were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish community but it's
>all probably too late now. I will still like to know what happened in
>September 2004 to cause it to suddenly die. The problem with
>soc.culture.jewish.moderated is that it is totally dominated by Americans
>(like most of usenet) and there are different issues in the UK.
Just for info, it is generally regarded that in discussing uk.*
the existence of groups outside of uk.* is irrelevant. If you can
prove that there can be generated enough interest and support to
revive your group then you will probably find enough support here
to at least suspend deletion. Many of us do not like seeing
rmgroup unless it is really clear that a group is beyond hope of
revival.
Having said that, the evidence does seem to be that urj is a
corpse, unfortunately.
--
DG
Molly Mockford
wrote in <f91ug5da5qa0affir...@4ax.com>:
>Just for info, it is generally regarded that in discussing uk.*
>the existence of groups outside of uk.* is irrelevant. If you can
>prove that there can be generated enough interest and support to
>revive your group then you will probably find enough support here
>to at least suspend deletion. Many of us do not like seeing
>rmgroup unless it is really clear that a group is beyond hope of
>revival.
Personally, I'm strongly inclined towards any posts indicating *genuine*
interest, however minimal, meriting at the least a temporary suspension
of proposed deletion, not just specifically in this case but in any rm
proposal. It gives people time to discuss and plan, to see whether
those interested can recruit others who might be interested, etc. If
not, then nothing is lost, and another rm RFD can be raised in due
course. Better that a dozen empty and useless groups remain than that
one which might display the occasional patellar reflex should be
removed.
>Having said that, the evidence does seem to be that urj is a
>corpse, unfortunately.
That does, sadly, appear to be the case unless we see evidence of some
further interest - although there is no harm in waiting and seeing.
But hey, we haven't even had me and Peter J Ross considering
volunteering as joint moderators, as per the late lamented
uk.politics.announce :-(
(And I think I'd have enjoyed working with Peadar Ruadh ... hey, Peter,
how d'ya fancy setting ourselves up as alternative moderators for the
cycling lot?)
Coat. Mine. Fetched. Bed. Going.
Henry Goodman
news:hemvib$2ps$1...@news.albasani.net...
Comments on the above;
Moderators do have to delete spam; the lack of on-topic posts to consider
just means a shortage of newbies, there could be a healthy traffic from
whitelisted regulars; in fact there were quite a lot of posts in the month
before the system went down.
Does the whitelist still exist? Is it possible to inform those on it of the
imminent death of this group, most of them probably don't know.
If that is not possible then you might as well kill it today as scheduled.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Comments on the above;
> Moderators do have to delete spam; the lack of on-topic posts to consider
> just means a shortage of newbies, there could be a healthy traffic from
> whitelisted regulars; in fact there were quite a lot of posts in the month
> before the system went down.
> Does the whitelist still exist? Is it possible to inform those on it of the
> imminent death of this group, most of them probably don't know.
> If that is not possible then you might as well kill it today as scheduled.
The whitelist would have vanished as part of the vanishing moderation
system. I might possibly have an archive of the moderation system at
the time (a few years before) when I handed over to the (then) new team.
I will have a dig around in some old tapes - the user list did not
change much in the intervening time.
You could also compile a user list from the Google Groups archive.
Is your email address above valid ?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net>
><c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message
>news:hemvib$2ps$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Your call.
>>
>
>Comments on the above;
>Moderators do have to delete spam; the lack of on-topic posts to
>consider just means a shortage of newbies, there could be a healthy
>traffic from whitelisted regulars; in fact there were quite a lot of
>posts in the month before the system went down.
>Does the whitelist still exist? Is it possible to inform those on it of
>the imminent death of this group, most of them probably don't know.
>If that is not possible then you might as well kill it today as scheduled.
I suppose the other way would be to un- or de- moderate the group and
see what happens [1]. My guess is that jewish people in the uk won't
like the result of that, there are strange people out there probably
trying to post to uk.religion.jewish right now. Do you see yourself as
a spam filter for a group you think ought to exist (but exists in name
only) or a person building a community? If the latter I think everyone
here will back off happily, show us the community on Usenet, please (I
don't doubt the existence of the actual community, of course).
[1] i don't recall that having been done before but think it is possible
for Control to make the change
Henry Goodman
<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message
news:heoahf$vr0$1...@news.albasani.net...
That wouldn't distinguish between the white list and casual posters.
>
> Is your email address above valid ?
>
Yes. I spell it out in my sig as an anti-spam measure.
Henry Goodman
that nut-cases and anti-Semites will post nasty rubbish on such a group and
drive away genuine posters. On a moderated group after a few rejections they
go away.
My position is that there was a community (not a strong one) 4 years ago
which was effectively dissolved by the host (not moderators) being unable to
continue and it would be nice if we could get back to the situation then.
Graham Drabble
news:$MpZ6gyQ26DLFwoB@[127.0.0.1]:
> I suppose the other way would be to un- or de- moderate the group
> and see what happens [1].
> [1] i don't recall that having been done before but think it is
> possible for Control to make the change
Yeah, t's possible to send a cmsg to unmoderate the group though how
sucessful it would be at being accepted is debateable.
A moderation system that does a basic spam check and then approves
everything would probably be easier to get working in practice.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net>
>My position is that there was a community (not a strong one) 4 years
>ago which was effectively dissolved by the host (not moderators) being
>unable to continue and it would be nice if we could get back to the
>situation then.
Ummm, you said "host". I think christians have a special meaning for
that word <-- intended as humour
All that aside, what would you like us to do? uk.* is a managed
hierarchy, if a group is perceived to be dead we remove it. We aren't
saying people that believe in something don't exist, etc.
My guess is that the people in the uk that are jewish and want to talk
about it (have you met my sister?) have probably moved onto more
controlled spaces like bulletin boards and t'other web stuff where they
get someone else to filter bad behaviour from others.
Wm...
<Xns9CD070F75C060gr...@drabble.me.uk> uk.net.news.config
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
Wasn't that why uk.l.y.m failed?
My YouTube contribution is this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQgeMe3HaSI
there are others available. I'm just not sure what Henry wants.
Henry Goodman
list was conveniently accessible it would be worth asking them whether they
want to revive the group. Since it isn't I withdraw my objection to rmgroup.
Henry Goodman
> Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:43:30 <IXOPm.17490$Lu6...@newsfe05.ams2>
> uk.net.news.config Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net>
>
>>My position is that there was a community (not a strong one) 4 years ago
>>which was effectively dissolved by the host (not moderators) being unable
>>to continue and it would be nice if we could get back to the situation
>>then.
>
> Ummm, you said "host". I think christians have a special meaning for that
> word <-- intended as humour
>
too:-)
> All that aside, what would you like us to do? uk.* is a managed
> hierarchy, if a group is perceived to be dead we remove it. We aren't
> saying people that believe in something don't exist, etc.
>
> My guess is that the people in the uk that are jewish and want to talk
> about it (have you met my sister?) have probably moved onto more
> controlled spaces like bulletin boards and t'other web stuff where they
> get someone else to filter bad behaviour from others.
The sort of issue they might want to discuss is the current controversy
about admissions to Jewish schools where the JFS (Jewish Free School) lost a
court case and the appeal is currently before the new Supreme Court.
>
> --
A.Lee
> I don't think the group should be demoderated. Experience elsewhere shows
> that nut-cases and anti-Semites will post nasty rubbish on such a group and
> drive away genuine posters. On a moderated group after a few rejections they
> go away.
> My position is that there was a community (not a strong one) 4 years ago
> which was effectively dissolved by the host (not moderators) being unable to
> continue and it would be nice if we could get back to the situation then.
Unfortunately, you are the only one who has objected.
If there were a few people who would contribute to the group, then maybe
you should contact them, and get them to object to the proposal here.
If the 'delete group' message has been posted to the US group, and still
no interest shown in keeping it [1], then I must say that the Group
should go, as it is doing nothing, with very little interest in keeping
it going.
You say it was short of postings 4 years ago, since then, Usenet use has
fallen, so why do you think they'd be more interest in it now?
[1] my understanding of that being, if anyone couldnt post to a uk.
newsgroup, they'd try to post to worldwide/US groups, and no objections
from those groups, hence no UK users are interested in a UK group)
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Charles Lindsey
>You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and there
>were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish community ...
Which would seem like a good reason to retain a group where the
Anglo-Jewish community can mutter amongst themselves.
AFAICS, there are about 5 people interested, with two of them (yourself
included) willing to take on the moderation. That seems to merit further
discussion.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >
> > The whitelist would have vanished as part of the vanishing moderation
> > system. I might possibly have an archive of the moderation system at
> > the time (a few years before) when I handed over to the (then) new team.
> > I will have a dig around in some old tapes - the user list did not
> > change much in the intervening time.
> >
> > You could also compile a user list from the Google Groups archive.
>
> That wouldn't distinguish between the white list and casual posters.
Sorry, I have checked my archives and found that no relevant backup
survives. Your best hope is to compile a list from Google Groups.
There would be no real harm in including a few casual posters in a
one-off mailshot to elicit any interest in reviving the group.
Henry Goodman
news:Kts0q...@clerew.man.ac.uk...
> In <pRBPm.114035$Gz1....@newsfe25.ams2> "Henry Goodman"
> <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>
>>You're probably right. It used to limp along say 5-10 years ago and there
>>were (and still are) issues that affect the Anglo-Jewish community ...
>
> Which would seem like a good reason to retain a group where the
> Anglo-Jewish community can mutter amongst themselves.
>
> AFAICS, there are about 5 people interested, with two of them (yourself
> included) willing to take on the moderation. That seems to merit further
> discussion.
>
need a minimum of 2 moderators.
Dave J.
+0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Molly Mockford' wrote:
>display the occasional patellar reflex
Thanks for the word Molly :-)
Now all Henry needs to do is spread it.
Kick it in the right direction and maybe jerk some posters out of the
woodwork.
Dave J.
Graham Drabble
news:rfd1-uk.religion.jewish-remove-20091110210805$63...@gradwell.net:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
Is there any attempt still being made to revive this group? If not I'll
submit a new RFD in the new year and look to take that to fast-track /
vote.
Wm...
<Xns9CE7A8F2CFF0Bgr...@drabble.me.uk> uk.net.news.config
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
>On 10 Nov 2009 Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
>news:rfd1-uk.religion.jewish-remove-20091110210805$63...@gradwell.net:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
>> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>
>> delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
>
>Is there any attempt still being made to revive this group?
I think two people want it to exist.
> If not I'll
>submit a new RFD in the new year and look to take that to fast-track /
>vote.
My guess is that the two people concerned would like you to deal with
other groups first. It may be symbolic for them.
Andy Leighton
They may well be trying to drum up potential users from other newsgroups,
and also organise some moderation machinery. I would certainly support
giving them some time to do so. There is little to lose by delaying an
extra month or two if there attempts at revival are serious.
If in the RFD period they post that they are serious in trying to revive
the group I will oppose the fast-track.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Henry Goodman
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
"Graham Drabble" <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE7A8F2CFF0Bgr...@drabble.me.uk...
In his post starting the thread "Removal of uk.religion.jewish, Fast Track
fails" dated 28/11/09 Chris Croughton suggested that this newsgroup should
be given 6 months to attempt to recover. I have had confirmation from
Jonathan Allen, the moderator when the newsgroup failed in August 2005, that
the problem was the disappearance of the moderation host. Jonathan does not
wish to be moderator of a revived group. There are 2 of us willing to do
that and we have had offers to host the moderation software but we will not
set that up until we think we have enough willing posters. We are looking
for them at the moment. I think it unlikely that we will succeed but we
assume we have the 6 months promised us one month ago.
I wish all Christian readers a Merry Christmas.
Tom Crispin
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>I wish all Christian readers a Merry Christmas.
What about Pagan readers at the time of their Yuletide?
Rob Morley
Happy yesterday, you mean?
Graham Drabble
news:Mn8Ym.143333$ra.3...@newsfe26.ams2:
> "Graham Drabble" <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE7A8F2CFF0Bgr...@drabble.me.uk...
>> On 10 Nov 2009 Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
>> news:rfd1-uk.religion.jewish-remove-20091110210805$63be@gradwell.n
>> et:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>
>>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
>>> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>>>
>>> delete moderated newsgroup uk.religion.jewish
>>
>> Is there any attempt still being made to revive this group? If
>> not I'll submit a new RFD in the new year and look to take that
>> to fast-track / vote.
> In his post starting the thread "Removal of uk.religion.jewish,
> Fast Track fails" dated 28/11/09 Chris Croughton suggested that
> this newsgroup should be given 6 months to attempt to recover.
That is merely Chris / Committee's view. Nothing prevents a proponent
from raising an RFD in the meantime.
> I
> have had confirmation from Jonathan Allen, the moderator when the
> newsgroup failed in August 2005, that the problem was the
> disappearance of the moderation host. Jonathan does not wish to be
> moderator of a revived group. There are 2 of us willing to do that
> and we have had offers to host the moderation software but we will
> not set that up until we think we have enough willing posters. We
> are looking for them at the moment. I think it unlikely that we
> will succeed but we assume we have the 6 months promised us one
> month ago. I wish all Christian readers a Merry Christmas.
However, I am certainly not interested in removing a group where
there are active attempts to revive it. Seeing as you now have
contact with one of the ex-moderators you should be able to get the
moderation handed over to you without an RFD (just ask them to email
Control to confirm they will hand over). I would recommend getting
something done as an interim method (even if you just have a spam
filter and approve the rest) so that those who are interested can
start talking.
Assuming the old mod will hand over to you there's no need for unn*
to be involved in this any more. I'll leave this for now, if you
suceed (and I do wish you luck) then urj won't appear on my list of
low traffic groups again, if you don't I'll pick it up in a few
months time when it comes back to the bottom of the list. However
don't take the 6 months in the post from Control as being any
officially sanctioned period, it's, at most, a suggestion.
(BTW, not sure what happened to your post above, it has a sig at the
top.)
Rob Morley
> Jonathan does not wish to be moderator of a revived
> group. There are 2 of us willing to do that and we have had offers to
> host the moderation software but we will not set that up until we
> think we have enough willing posters. We are looking for them at the
> moment.
Why not just get it running and see who turns up? That has to be a
better indication of viability than collecting people who say they'll
use it if it does get fixed. So if it doesn't work out you'll have
wasted some time implementing the technical stuff, but ISTM that
otherwise you run the risk of wasting an opportunity.
Henry Goodman
Put the sig issue down to finger trouble.
Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated, preferably
with a spam filter?
It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their posts
disappeared into thin cyberspace.
If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
Henry Goodman
news:20091222200230.0e405658@bluemoon...
I think that makes sense. So (see reply to Graham) I think it would be worth
trying it unmoderated as simply as possible. If we get anti-Semites muscling
in then it would be worth setting up moderation software.
Rob Morley
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> "Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20091222200230.0e405658@bluemoon...
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:39:30 -0000
> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Jonathan does not wish to be moderator of a revived
> >> group. There are 2 of us willing to do that and we have had offers
> >> to host the moderation software but we will not set that up until
> >> we think we have enough willing posters. We are looking for them
> >> at the moment.
> >
> > Why not just get it running and see who turns up? That has to be a
> > better indication of viability than collecting people who say
> > they'll use it if it does get fixed. So if it doesn't work out
> > you'll have wasted some time implementing the technical stuff, but
> > ISTM that otherwise you run the risk of wasting an opportunity.
>
>
> I think that makes sense. So (see reply to Graham) I think it would
> be worth trying it unmoderated as simply as possible. If we get
> anti-Semites muscling in then it would be worth setting up moderation
> software.
>
>
As it exists as a moderated group you'll need to run it through
moderation software simply because of the mechanics of getting messages
published, but there's no reason you can't accept one of the hosting
offers you've already received and just set it to pass everything
without human intervention. Then get the former mod to ask control to
point the forwarding address at the new server and you're done. I
suspect intervention would soon become expedient, but who knows?
Ian Jackson
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated, preferably
>with a spam filter?
It would be fairly straightforward to have a moderation robot that
automatically approved all postings.
>It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their posts
>disappeared into thin cyberspace.
Quite so.
>If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
That would be a reasonable way forward.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Graham Drabble
news:6OlYm.95666$O74....@newsfe25.ams2:
> Put the sig issue down to finger trouble.
> Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated,
> preferably with a spam filter?
> It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their
> posts disappeared into thin cyberspace.
> If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
There's no way to temporarily convert it to unmoderated (changing mod
status of a group is technically difficult because of the number of
servers who do not automatically honour cmsgs).
It should be fairly easy however for a mod bot host to set it up to
approve everything after basic spam checking. I'd recommend you drop
{R} an email, would think it is something he could set up fairly
easily. If he can't, or you can't get hold of him, then drop me an
email in the New Year and I'll see what I can set up, should be a
fairly small amount of Perl required but it would mean more work once
you then want to go to a full moderated group.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >
> > Assuming the old mod will hand over to you there's no need for unn*
> > to be involved in this any more. I'll leave this for now, if you
> > suceed (and I do wish you luck) then urj won't appear on my list of
> > low traffic groups again, if you don't I'll pick it up in a few
> > months time when it comes back to the bottom of the list. However
> > don't take the 6 months in the post from Control as being any
> > officially sanctioned period, it's, at most, a suggestion.
>
> Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated, preferably
> with a spam filter?
> It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their posts
> disappeared into thin cyberspace.
> If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
Whichever way you do it will need a moderation bot of some kind.
AFAIK an approve-everything bot does not exist yet so it is just as simple
to speak to {R} and get ukrj set up at moderation.org.uk
Then all you need it to go to a web page and tick some boxes, it is
normal practice to whitelist good users so that their posts appear
immediately without human intervention. The human moderators should
check at least once per day for messages waiting approval.
Just get on with it ASAP and see who shows up.
A bit of publicity such as an article in the JC etc may help once the
group is up and working.
Denis McMahon
> I think that makes sense. So (see reply to Graham) I think it would be
> worth trying it unmoderated as simply as possible. If we get
> anti-Semites muscling in then it would be worth setting up moderation
> software.
See other posts, trying to change the existing group to unmoderated is
harder and more error prone than setting up a modbot and redirecting the
submissions email address to it.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Henry Goodman
news:hgt57d$fpn$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> >
>> Put the sig issue down to finger trouble.
>> Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated,
>> preferably
>> with a spam filter?
>> It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their posts
>> disappeared into thin cyberspace.
>> If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
>
> Whichever way you do it will need a moderation bot of some kind.
> AFAIK an approve-everything bot does not exist yet so it is just as simple
> to speak to {R} and get ukrj set up at moderation.org.uk
>
Who is {R} ?
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> >
> > Whichever way you do it will need a moderation bot of some kind.
> > AFAIK an approve-everything bot does not exist yet so it is just as simple
> > to speak to {R} and get ukrj set up at moderation.org.uk
> >
>
> Who is {R} ?
Richard Ashton.
I gave you his email address in a previous message.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
Found it: {R}@semolina.org
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> In uk.net.news.config on 24 Dec 2009 21:24:29 GMT, Huge
> <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:> }Richard "I'm an obnoxious cunt and I'm proud of it" Ashton.
>
> Huge, thank you so much - I didn't know you cared.
All the oldpharts seem to be maturing with age.
<Offers a pipefull of baccy>
<virtual mince pie>.
Dave J.
-0000, in uk.net.news.config, 'Henry Goodman' wrote:
>I wish all Christian readers a Merry Christmas.
You don't need to be Christian (or to believe in any mythological wizard
for that matter) to celebrate the Solstice. It's a time of year, a
universal astronomical occurrence that affects everyone in this hemisphere
similarly.
Because it's been celebrated by so many cultures for so many centuries
(probably millennia) in so many different ways, it's a natural target for
any religious cult to bolt on one of their festivals. However its
celebration doesn't *have* to have anything to do with a 'magic book'.
Despite technology's reduction of climate's impact upon our lives the
length of daylight still has a marked psychological effect and the seasons
will probably always influence how we feel and behave.
I see the solstices (and to a lesser degree the equinoxes) as being
probably the longest lived of all annual festivals. They're universal and
their notability relies on no link with museum exhibits.
Obviously, from my point of view (and that of anyone wise enough to number
religious mythology among the top few major mortal human corruptions), the
sooner we manage to clean out the superstitious overtones the better and
the cleaner for the human race. But once that is done, it will *still* be
an ideal reason for a festival and festivals will still be a valuable part
of social interaction.
Happy Solstice Time folk!
Dave J,
--
Thinkings for Solstice time.. How much do you care?
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k4CYrpjx2p6pdEIc8Z?autoPlay=1
Music that goes with the thinkings. Think along..
http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x5hjmb?autoPlay=1
Dave J.
Why should pagans have any less of a festival than the god-squad?
It's solstice time, it's too dark/cold/wet to do anything but gather by a
fire chat eat and drink (or smoke if you prefer) Couple of weeks seems
about right to me ;) Ancient superstitions optional.
Dave J.
Henry Goodman
news:hh0mfd$u2$1...@news.albasani.net...
Perhaps he didn't get it. What I said was:
I see you have followed the thread in unnc about me attempting to revive
this newsgroup.
Please could you point me at a spec of the moderation software that you
support. I would like to get this set up fairly soon then I can see whether
there really is a demand for this newsgroup (it always had a sparse
population but was killed by closure of the moderation host). The last
moderator was Jonathan Allen <jona...@barumtrading.co.uk> who I think is
willing to hand over to me.
Molly Mockford
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote in <PsM_m.7420$Oh1....@newsfe24.ams2>:
>I wrote to Richard Ashton the above address on 26/12/09 but got no
>reply. Perhaps he didn't get it.
Maybe he's away over the long break; it's not uncommon.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Eleanor Blair
>At 17:53:30 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Henry Goodman
><henry....@virgin.net> wrote in <PsM_m.7420$Oh1....@newsfe24.ams2>:
>
>>I wrote to Richard Ashton the above address on 26/12/09 but got no
>>reply. Perhaps he didn't get it.
>
>Maybe he's away over the long break; it's not uncommon.
Certainly I went away on the 23rd and didn't read any mail after that
until I got back yesterday evening. And I won't be reading work mail
til the 4th :)
Henry Goodman
news:x+p*SQ...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Molly Mockford wrote:
>>At 17:53:30 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Henry Goodman
>><henry....@virgin.net> wrote in <PsM_m.7420$Oh1....@newsfe24.ams2>:
>>
>>>I wrote to Richard Ashton the above address on 26/12/09 but got no
>>>reply. Perhaps he didn't get it.
>>
>>Maybe he's away over the long break; it's not uncommon.
>
> Certainly I went away on the 23rd and didn't read any mail after that
> until I got back yesterday evening. And I won't be reading work mail
> til the 4th :)
>
> --
I'll wait.
Charles Lindsey
>Is there an easy way to just start up the newsgroup unmoderated, preferably
>with a spam filter?
>It could be that people have tried to post and given up when their posts
>disappeared into thin cyberspace.
>If posts start to appear we could think about moderation.
Yes, that would be fine. Just needs someone to cobble up a Perl script to
do it. The main worry is that you need a reliable and permanently
connected machine to run the script on.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5