filtering of email to moderators of u.r.cycling.moderated
Nigel Cliffe
The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
inbound email addressed
to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
"bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
Note that the change only affects email sent directly to
ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk , email sent to any other address is
unaffected.
Nigel Cliffe, on behalf of the moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
John Hall
Nigel Cliffe <inv...@2mm.org.uk> writes:
>
>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
>inbound email addressed
>to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
>end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
>addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
>"bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
Glad to hear it. If only this had been done when the problem first
became evident, an awful lot of acrimonious debate could have been
avoided.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
> inbound email addressed
> to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
> These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
> end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
> addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
> "bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
>
> Note that the change only affects email sent directly to
> ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk , email sent to any other address is
> unaffected.
Thanks for the progress, Nigel.
What is being done about the other bogus validity checks affecting other
users ?.
Rob Morley
"Nigel Cliffe" <inv...@2mm.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering
> of inbound email addressed
> to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
What about urcm-moderators@... ?
:-)
Pedt
Mon, 7 Dec 2009, John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wibbled
>In article <hfikva$p1u$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Nigel Cliffe <inv...@2mm.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
>>inbound email addressed
>>to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>>These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
>>end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
>>addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
>>"bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
><snip>
>
>Glad to hear it.
Yes. Thank you Nigel for posting to say it had been done.
>If only this had been done when the problem first
>became evident, an awful lot of acrimonious debate could have been
>avoided.
Indeed.
--
Pedt
1 Philosophia = 0.91644 Cic�ro
Jonathan Amery
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>Glad to hear it. If only this had been done when the problem first
>became evident, an awful lot of acrimonious debate could have been
>avoided.
No, it wouldn't. Because the troll with the hotmail addresses would
still have been able to manufacture an obvious complaint.
--
Jonathan Amery. Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
##### A medley of extemporanea;
#######__o And love is thing that can never go wrong;
#######'/ And I am Marie of Roumania. - Dorothy Parker
Andy Burns
> In article<kYT37QE$nNHL...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
> John Hall<john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> Glad to hear it. If only this had been done when the problem first
>> became evident, an awful lot of acrimonious debate could have been
>> avoided.
>
> No, it wouldn't. Because the troll with the hotmail addresses would
> still have been able to manufacture an obvious complaint.
From the wording of the announcement, it sounds like the configuration
change only affects Microsoft's servers, is it possible the original
complainant will find another email provider which is still blocked?
Matthew Vernon
> From the wording of the announcement, it sounds like the
> configuration change only affects Microsoft's servers, is it possible
> the original complainant will find another email provider which is
> still blocked?
There are probably still some running open relays...
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Note that the change only affects email sent directly to
>ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk , email sent to any other address is
>unaffected.
So there is still a problem with the official address? Why?
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Graham Drabble
news:hfikva$p1u$1...@news.albasani.net:
> Note that the change only affects email sent directly to
> ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk , email sent to any other
> address is unaffected.
Can you confirm what will happen for mail sent to
uk-rec-cycl...@usenet.org.uk which then got forwarded to urcm-
moderators?
Reading the above, I think it will still be blocked, if that's the case
then I think you still have a problem.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
>inbound email addressed
>to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
>end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
>addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
>"bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
>
>Note that the change only affects email sent directly to
>ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk , email sent to any other address is
>unaffected.
It needs to work on mail forwarded via the official contact address,
uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk, otherwise it's not
really going to make any real difference.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the filtering of
>inbound email addressed
>to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft) servers. The
>end result is that email originating from hotmail.com and live.co.uk
>addresses will pass through to the moderators. This should remove the
>"bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
Still broken:
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:
urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
recipient <urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
550 invalid MAIL-FROM: [65.54.188.72.] MAIL -> 550 SC-002 Mail
rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. The mail server
IP connecting to Windows Live Hotmail has exhibited namespace mining
behavior. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your
E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins,
please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information
and support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Cliffe
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:21:34 -0000, Nigel Cliffe put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>>
>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the
>> filtering of inbound email addressed
>> to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>> These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft)
>> servers. The end result is that email originating from hotmail.com
>> and live.co.uk addresses will pass through to the moderators. This
>> should remove the "bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com
>> and live.co.uk users.
>
> Still broken:
Please forward original message and failure message to the moderators and
we'll look at it.
Our test messages from Hotmail worked.
- Nigel (speaking for myself this time)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:21:34 -0000, Nigel Cliffe put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>>
>>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the
>>> filtering of inbound email addressed
>>> to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>>
>>> These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft)
>>> servers. The end result is that email originating from hotmail.com
>>> and live.co.uk addresses will pass through to the moderators. This
>>> should remove the "bounce" message previously seen by hotmail.com
>>> and live.co.uk users.
>>
>> Still broken:
>
>
>Please forward original message and failure message to the moderators and
>we'll look at it.
>Our test messages from Hotmail worked.
I've forwarded it from my Hotmail account to
postm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk, since I clearly can't forward it
directly to the moderators from there. You'll need to get your system
administrator to forward it on to you.
Denis McMahon
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
> failed:
>
> urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
> recipient <urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> 550 invalid MAIL-FROM: [65.54.188.72.] MAIL -> 550 SC-002 Mail
> rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. The mail server
> IP connecting to Windows Live Hotmail has exhibited namespace mining
> behavior. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your
> E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins,
> please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information
> and support
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
When I read that, it seems to me that hotmail is refusing to send the
message because it doesn't like chiark, but it might be my failure to
fully understand "Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy
reasons" and the fact that the message posts a microsoft live.com
website for info and support.
I don't think it's reasonable to hold chiark responsible for a refusal
by hotmail to send the mail unless that refusal is due to a technical
failure at chiark. If chiark's doing a legitimate backwards verification
of the hotmail sender, hotmail might use that as a basis to refuse mails
from chiark, but it's not a reason to refuse to send mails to chiark.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>>
>> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
>> failed:
>>
>> urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
>> recipient <urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>> 550 invalid MAIL-FROM: [65.54.188.72.] MAIL -> 550 SC-002 Mail
>> rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. The mail server
>> IP connecting to Windows Live Hotmail has exhibited namespace mining
>> behavior. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your
>> E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins,
>> please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information
>> and support
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>When I read that, it seems to me that hotmail is refusing to send the
>message because it doesn't like chiark, but it might be my failure to
>fully understand "Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy
>reasons" and the fact that the message posts a microsoft live.com
>website for info and support.
No, the message is leaving Hotmail and being rejected by chiark. The
reason it's being rejected by chiark is because chiark tries to do
sender verification against the address, and Hotmail in turn is
interpreting that as a dictionary attack and blocking the verification
probe. So, because chiark can't verify the address, it rejects the
message.
Whether chiark should be carrying out verification probes and whether
Hotmail should be blocking them are separate questions. There isn't a
100% consensus on either, but it's fair to say that the majority would
agree with Hotmail and disagree with chiark.
The Happy Hippy
"Denis McMahon" <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:w-KdnbTTUo8FjoDW...@giganews.com...
Though it does say -
>> Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
>> recipient <urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
Which suggests to me it was chiark doing the rejection, because -
>> 550 invalid MAIL-FROM: [65.54.188.72.]
chiark didn't like the MAIL-FROM info / IP.
>> 550 SC-002 Mail
>> rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons.
Does sound like a message from Hotmail themselves, so if that is generated
fom chiark's end it is adding to the confusion.
Ian Jackson
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>Still broken:
...
>urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
have come via Control's unofficial alias. As Nigel said, messages
sent to urcm-moderators@chiark, the address published by the
moderators, will work.
I recommend that you use the official address. Official meaning the
one in the Call For Votes: urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
Messages via the unofficial alias (imposed on the moderators without
the moderators' consent and without any kind of authority) don't work
because at the time the rejection/acceptance decision is made they're
indistinguishable from forged mails claiming to be from hotmail but
which have nothing to do with hotmail at all.
[1]
2009-12-07 13:31:27 GMT: reject: command host=v-mail-in-8.gradwell.net
from=markgoodge@hotmail*** readerr=EOF rej-msg="invalid MAIL-FROM:
[65.54.188.72.] MAIL -> 550 SC-002 Mail rejected by Windows Live
Hotmail for policy reasons. The mail server IP connecting to Windows
Live Hotmail has exhibited namespace mining behavior. If you are not
an email/network admin please contact your E-mail/Internet Service
Provider for help. Email/network admins, please visit
http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information and support"
rcpt-normal-550=urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
pleased=-18019ms
which seems to be the one you reported to postmaster@chiark, too.
--
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
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In article <lu0qh5t6n41q5k7oa...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>Still broken:
>...
>>urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
>
>You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
>That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
>have come via Control's unofficial alias.
No, it was sent to the official address.
> As Nigel said, messages
>sent to urcm-moderators@chiark, the address published by the
>moderators, will work.
That's the destination address, which should be transparent to the end
users. The official address is the one which is parallels the
submission address by adding '-request' to the local part of it.
>I recommend that you use the official address. Official meaning the
>one in the Call For Votes: urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>
>Messages via the unofficial alias (imposed on the moderators without
>the moderators' consent and without any kind of authority) don't work
>because at the time the rejection/acceptance decision is made they're
>indistinguishable from forged mails claiming to be from hotmail but
>which have nothing to do with hotmail at all.
Message sent using the standard forwardinng address will always come
from the same server, so you can whitelist that just as easily as you
can whitelist Hotmail's own servers.
Jonathan Amery
In article <w-KdnbTTUo8FjoDW...@giganews.com>,
Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>>
>> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
>> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
>> failed:
>>
>> urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>> Host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]:25 rejected
>> recipient <urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>> 550 invalid MAIL-FROM: [65.54.188.72.] MAIL -> 550 SC-002 Mail
>> rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. The mail server
>> IP connecting to Windows Live Hotmail has exhibited namespace mining
>> behavior. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your
>> E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins,
>> please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information
>> and support
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>When I read that, it seems to me that hotmail is refusing to send the
>message because it doesn't like chiark, but it might be my failure to
>fully understand "Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy
>reasons" and the fact that the message posts a microsoft live.com
>website for info and support.
I'm afraid that this is a misunderstanding, caused by the rather
condensed format of chiark's rejection. What the quoted error says
is:
Host [chiark] rejected recipient [urcm-mods] with a 550 error message
(text included).
The included text says "I rejected this message during sender
verification. When I spoke to Hotmail's servers to verify the sender
they said '550 SC-002 Mail ...'"
i.e.
Hotmail goes to chiark and says "I have some mail from exa...@hotmail.com"
chiark thinks about this, and goes to talk to Hotmail's incoming mail
server and says "I'd like to send mail to exa...@hotmail.com please"
Hotmail's incoming mail server says "ooo, this chiark is on my
list of bad people" and replies with a 550 SC-002 message.
chiark then replies to Hotmail's outgoing mail server and says "I
tested that address and was told I can't send mail to it, here's what
you said when I tried "550 SC-002...".
J.
--
Jonathan Amery. [Mierin] said she had found a new source for the One Power.
##### [Lanfear] was the most beautiful woman Min had ever seen...
#######__o "Lews Therin was mine, he is mine, and he will be mine, forever.
#######'/ I give him into your charge, to keep for me until I come."
Nigel Cliffe
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:45:22 -0000, Nigel Cliffe put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:21:34 -0000, Nigel Cliffe put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The moderators of uk.rec.cycling.moderated have changed the
>>>> filtering of inbound email addressed
>>>> to ucrm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>>>
>>>> These changes affect email originating from hotmail (Microsoft)
>>>> servers. The end result is that email originating from hotmail.com
>>>> and live.co.uk addresses will pass through to the moderators.
>>>> This should remove the "bounce" message previously seen by
>>>> hotmail.com and live.co.uk users.
>>>
>>> Still broken:
>>
>>
>> Please forward original message and failure message to the
>> moderators and we'll look at it.
>> Our test messages from Hotmail worked.
>
> I've forwarded it from my Hotmail account to
> postm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk, since I clearly can't forward it
> directly to the moderators from there. You'll need to get your system
> administrator to forward it on to you.
Thank you.
You should also have my private email address, and can use that to relay
information to the moderators if your Hotmail problem persists.
- Nigel
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
>That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
>have come via Control's unofficial alias.
Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*, using
exactly the same format as the standard submission address (which, as
I recall, you originally refused to accept as well until someone
managed to hammer into your thick skull the fact that the group won't
work without it). The fact that you've "fixed" the destination address
but not the standard forwarding address is, yet again, indicative of a
deliberate desire on your part to prolong your vendetta against the
committee for as long as possible. Never mind the fact that you are
the least popular candidate ever to stand for election to the
committee (even Paul Cummins got more votes than you when he was on
the ballot!), you still seem to be suffering from delusions that if
you stamp your foot long enough and loudly enough we'll somehow cave
in and let you have your way. But this isn't the nursery, and we're
not going to give you a sweetie to stop the tantrums. Yes, it's your
server, and you can do what you want with it, and neither the
committee nor the urcm moderators can force you to act like an adult
if you insist on not doing so. But, if you have even the slightest
microcosm of clue lurking somewhere in the deep and darkest recesses
of your consciousness the it ought to be obvious even to you that the
best way out of the hole you've dug for yourself is to admit that you
got it wrong.
Denis McMahon
Ok, so where's all the hotmail crap about namespace mining coming from?
Because that looks like a hotmail rejection message? If sauce is tacking
hotmail's response to the sender verification check onto the rejection
reason, it could do a better job of explaining itself, something like:
Host <mydomain> [<myip>]:<myport> rejected recipient <msgto>: sender
<msgfromname> unknown at domain <msgfromdomain>: <insert 550 blah
hotmail crap here>
Here's a dumb question: Is it actually possible to send a message from a
hotmail.com / live.com account that hasn't got a valid hotmail.com or
live.com from name?
Because unless people with hotmail.com / live.com accounts can insert
their own header "From: " header, and, assuming that live.com and
hotmail.com mta's aren't open relays, the check sauce is doing is
pointless as hotmail.com / live.com will only ever be delivering
messages from (in their view) valid user accounts, so in the absence of
the "data mining" block a lookup on hotmail.com / live.com at the point
that hotmail.com / live.com was attempting to deliver an email would
always come back as "valid email address".
It might be better off looking for hotmail.com / live.com "From: "
fields in emails being delivered from non hotmail servers, although of
course those could be valid too.
In fact, given that any mta is likely to either tell lies[1] or refuse
to co-operate[2] with the lookup, the more I think about it the more I
have to question it's legitmacy as a spam detection technique at all.
Much too much danger of false positives, and I'm sure there's much more
efficient ways of detecting real spam than making what seems to me to be
an arbitrary assumption about what another system really means if it
doesn't accept your attempt to send mail to it.
[1] If someone tries to send me mail for a non existent address, the
easiest thing for me to do is assume it's dictionary or msgid address
spam, accept it and drop it on the floor.
[2] Like hotmail.com / live.com does.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>In fact, given that any mta is likely to either tell lies[1] or refuse
>to co-operate[2] with the lookup, the more I think about it the more I
>have to question it's legitmacy as a spam detection technique at all.
>Much too much danger of false positives, and I'm sure there's much more
>efficient ways of detecting real spam than making what seems to me to be
>an arbitrary assumption about what another system really means if it
>doesn't accept your attempt to send mail to it.
That's one of the reasons why sender callout verification is now
widely discredited.
Matthew Vernon
> On 07 Dec 2009 14:55:35 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
> >
> >You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
> >That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
> >have come via Control's unofficial alias.
>
> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*, using
<snip rant>
Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish
as their contact address? If they got their way and the page at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html was altered to
have their preferred text rather than the -request@usenet listed,
what harm would it do? As I see it, anyone who knows enough about
usenet to know to try the -req...@usenet.org.uk address to get hold
of a uk.* moderated group's moderators is going to be able to google
up the moderators' page and see "If there are problems ... postmaster"
and be able to get to the moderators if they have problems.
I find it hard to see what harm the urcm moderators' approach is
causing (beyond endless flamewars here).
Pedt
15:21:12 on Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wibbled
>Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
>it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*, using
>exactly the same format as the standard submission address (which, as
>I recall, you originally refused to accept as well until someone
>managed to hammer into your thick skull the fact that the group won't
>work without it). The fact that you've "fixed" the destination address
>but not the standard forwarding address is, yet again, indicative of a
>deliberate desire on your part to prolong your vendetta against the
>committee for as long as possible. Never mind the fact that you are
>the least popular candidate ever to stand for election to the
>committee (even Paul Cummins got more votes than you when he was on
>the ballot!), you still seem to be suffering from delusions that if
>you stamp your foot long enough and loudly enough we'll somehow cave
>in and let you have your way. But this isn't the nursery, and we're
>not going to give you a sweetie to stop the tantrums. Yes, it's your
>server, and you can do what you want with it, and neither the
>committee nor the urcm moderators can force you to act like an adult
>if you insist on not doing so. But, if you have even the slightest
>microcosm of clue lurking somewhere in the deep and darkest recesses
>of your consciousness the it ought to be obvious even to you that the
>best way out of the hole you've dug for yourself is to admit that you
>got it wrong.
UR DGindisguise AICM5P
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Adrian
they were saying:
>> >You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
>> >That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
>> >have come via Control's unofficial alias.
>> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
>> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*, using
> <snip rant>
>
> Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish as
> their contact address?
Well, quite.
Why SHOULD there be a standard form of address for all moderated groups
under the uk.* hierarchy? Standards, schmandards.
If ignoring established standards in favour of their own slightly
different (but home-grown) version is good enough for Microsoft, it's
gotta be good enough for Ian Jackson. Right, Ian?
kat
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 07 Dec 2009 14:55:35 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>> >
>> >You don't give a timestamp but I assume it is the message below[1].
>> >That message was not sent to urcm-moderators@chiark. It appears to
>> >have come via Control's unofficial alias.
>>
>> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
>> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*, using
>
><snip rant>
>
>Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish
>as their contact address?
It doesn't. That's precisely the point. The destination address is
immaterial to most users of the group, as it's transparent to them.
The only address that users of the group need to know is the standard
request address, because that will always be the same irrespective of
how it's handled by the moderation system or who the moderators are.
>If they got their way and the page at
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html was altered to
>have their preferred text rather than the -request@usenet listed,
>what harm would it do?
It wouldn't do any particular harm. The only real harm that would be
done is if the standard address doesn't work. Provided that works, it
doesn't really matter what's on the website. But, if the standard
address works, then there's no need to publish any other address
either. The problem we've got here is that Ian refuses to fix things
so that the standard address works, and he's trying to get around his
refusal to fix that by arguing that the address published on the
website should be changed. But that's irelevent - even if we agreed to
publish his preferred address, either as well as or even instead of
the standard address, he still has an obligation to make the standard
address work.
Personally, I'd be quite happy to have the destination address
published on the website as well as the standard address. For a while,
that was actually normal practice - the reason it was discontinued
was, AFAIK, simply because it was felt to be redundant, and it tended
to get out of date. But, if there was a general consensus to reinstate
it, I wouldn't object. However, doing so shouldn't detract from the
primary issue here, which is that at the moment, the standard address
doesn't work.
> As I see it, anyone who knows enough about
>usenet to know to try the -req...@usenet.org.uk address to get hold
>of a uk.* moderated group's moderators is going to be able to google
>up the moderators' page and see "If there are problems ... postmaster"
>and be able to get to the moderators if they have problems.
They shouldn't need to resort to Google, though. As others have said,
there's no justification for making end-users jump through extra hoops
in order to make contact when a server-side solution is trivial to
apply. Rather than asking why people can't look up the destination
address, the question that's more important is why the urcm moderators
can't manage to do something that every other moderated group in uk.*
has no problem with.
>I find it hard to see what harm the urcm moderators' approach is
>causing (beyond endless flamewars here).
It's causing endless flamewars here, and will probably continue to do
as long as they have a broken system. It also makes them look rather
bad, as it gives the impression that they're either petty or
incompetant (or both). If I was one of the moderators, that would be
good enough reason for me to be agitating internally for a change to
accepted standards.
Andrew Mobbs
>Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
>>
>> their contact address?
>
>Well, quite.
>
>Why SHOULD there be a standard form of address for all moderated groups
>under the uk.* hierarchy? Standards, schmandards.
>
>If ignoring established standards in favour of their own slightly
>different (but home-grown) version is good enough for Microsoft, it's
>gotta be good enough for Ian Jackson. Right, Ian?
If I ever needed to contact moderators for any group, I'd just google
it. Search engines have removed all sorts of requirements for rigid
hierarchies, constrained data formats and humans having to adapt to what
makes life easier for computers. There's no reason for UK Usenet not to
adapt too. As far as I can tell it's a de facto standard, not a de jure
one anyway, so it doesn't even need an RFD to change the rules.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>
>Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish
>as their contact address? If they got their way and the page at
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html was altered to
>have their preferred text rather than the -request@usenet listed,
>what harm would it do?
I sometimes do that when I'm coding. "Can't see what that line does I
think I'll delete it." Then all hell breaks loose.
Look Matthew, it's Usenet, none of it really matters as I've been
pointing out in my sig for the last ten years. But if we don't strive
for consistency then we're not doing the job to the best of our
ability.
jms
<jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <kYT37QE$nNHL...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>Glad to hear it. If only this had been done when the problem first
>>became evident, an awful lot of acrimonious debate could have been
>>avoided.
>
> No, it wouldn't. Because the troll with the hotmail addresses would
>still have been able to manufacture an obvious complaint.
Thank you Jonathan.
If it was a troll - then it certainly achieved a desired affect of
trolls and showed up many people - yourself included to - to be
absolute fuckwits.
Unfortunately it wasn't intended as a troll - so I cannot claim credit
for what was achieved (unintentionally)
jms
<and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>If I ever needed to contact moderators for any group, I'd just google
>it. Search engines have removed all sorts of requirements for rigid
>hierarchies, constrained data formats and humans having to adapt to what
>makes life easier for computers. There's no reason for UK Usenet not to
>adapt too. As far as I can tell it's a de facto standard, not a de jure
>one anyway, so it doesn't even need an RFD to change the rules.
>
>--
>Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Ah - yes - another disinterested part from chiark.
jms
wrote:
<snip>
>I'm going to see how this pans out, but am minded to RFD for the
>@usenet.org.uk address to become an established standard, which, if
>not adhered to would result in suspension of the group concerned by
>/dev/nulling the submission address.
In my opinion an excellent idea - go for it.
Theo Markettos
>
> Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> said
> > Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish
> > as their contact address?
> Can you tell me what actual good it does?
(The context wasn't quite clear, so hope I haven't quoted you out of context)
There is a conflict here. On the one hand, there's a wish for
standardisation of addresses. In isolation, this is a good thing.
On the other, the first SMTP hop is important for spamfiltering because only
at that point do you get to interact with the sending machine. Any further
down the line and you can only deliver, bin or bounce the message - you
cannot reject it, or interrogate the sender to make that decision, or tell
them to try again later. You're holding the baby now. You only have the
message and any metadata that the first SMTP hop happens to add on. This is
frustrating if you end up accepting lots of spam you could have rejected for
technical failures at SMTP time.
So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to have a
standard addresses something like:
moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
That turns it from a .forward alias into a DNS alias. Being a DNS alias,
the choice of machine that does SMTP for
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk is completely under the control of
the moderators and they can do whatever they want with it. A good proportion
of these would point to the normal usenet.org.uk machine to maintain the
status quo, but the additional flexibility is there to those who want it.
Thoughts?
Theo
d...@telent.net
> So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to have a
> standard addresses something like:
>
> moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
> submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
For what little my opinion is worth, I like this idea. You could add an
A record as well for the official group web page
I think for maximum compatibility you'd probably want the submission
address to use hyphens instead of dots: viz
submi...@uk-rec-cycling-moderated.usenet.org.uk
but that may be a misapprehension based on not having run any more
recent news server system than C News circa 1996
-dan
Andrew Mobbs
I agree.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Hmm, actually, no not appreciated. It turns out I misunderstood, and for
> some reason that is both bizarre and crazy, someone's gone to the effort of
> making one address work, but not the standard one.
Something is still badly broken.
I sent a test message (titled Test 2) from my hotmail account to
uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk which should have
been forwarded to the moderators list via chiark.
The message which was sent at 15:10 requested a reply to confirn receipt.
No such reply has been received.
Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
by chiark.
Sounds like more incompetance at chiark to me.
PLEASE sort the damn thing out.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>There is a conflict here. On the one hand, there's a wish for
>standardisation of addresses. In isolation, this is a good thing.
>
>On the other, the first SMTP hop is important for spamfiltering because only
>at that point do you get to interact with the sending machine. Any further
>down the line and you can only deliver, bin or bounce the message - you
>cannot reject it, or interrogate the sender to make that decision, or tell
>them to try again later. You're holding the baby now. You only have the
>message and any metadata that the first SMTP hop happens to add on. This is
>frustrating if you end up accepting lots of spam you could have rejected for
>technical failures at SMTP time.
That's not necessarily true, if the forwarding system can do recipient
verification - something which is now considered best practice,
anyway, as it minimises backscatter.
>So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to have a
>standard addresses something like:
>
>moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
>submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
>
>That turns it from a .forward alias into a DNS alias. Being a DNS alias,
>the choice of machine that does SMTP for
>uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk is completely under the control of
>the moderators and they can do whatever they want with it. A good proportion
>of these would point to the normal usenet.org.uk machine to maintain the
>status quo, but the additional flexibility is there to those who want it.
The main drawback, as I see it, is that a DNS solution means that
changing it involves a propagation delay. That could, potentially,
mean a short outage of the group while caches around the net catch up.
Changing a forwarding address, on the other hand, is instant.
The other issue is that uk.* doesn't exist in a vacuum. The standard
submission and request addresses are also used by moderators.isc.org,
and for anything in uk.* they simply forward to the equivalent address
at usenet.org.uk. For example, moderators.isc.org considers that the
submission address for urcm is
uk-rec-cycli...@moderators.isc.org, and that address is
forwarded to uk-rec-cycli...@usenet.org.uk. Of course,
there's no reason why the usenet.org.uk servers can't then forward
that to submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk, but it
means that they still have to accept mail addressed to
uk-rec-cycli...@usenet.org.uk in the first place. And the
same applies to the request address:
uk-rec-cycling-m...@moderators.isc.org will exist and be
forwarded to uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk, so that
address has to be handled and forwarded by the usenet.org.uk server.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> > So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to have a
> > standard addresses something like:
> >
> > moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
> > submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
>
> For what little my opinion is worth, I like this idea. You could add an
> A record as well for the official group web page
No, it is another hopeless attempt to avoid fixing the real problem.
There is no need to change any standards, either fix chiark to accept
the standard address or move the moderation systems to another system
with a competant administrator.
All of the blather about spam is irrelevant, the level of spam
addressed to the moderators address has never been significant
for any moderated group I have known.
Jon Ribbens
> So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to have a
> standard addresses something like:
>
> moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
> submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
Unfortunately, at least the latter part of that would not only require
hundreds of news administrators to change their server configuration,
it would probably require the news software authors to write new code,
and the administrators to upgrade their software to the new versions.
Ian Jackson
>Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
>uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
>by chiark.
Are you deliberately using the wrong address ? The correct address is
urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
--
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
kat
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said
Not a lot because I don't really know what you mean. But no doubt people
with the right sort of technical knowledge will have some.
--
kat
>^..^<
Percy Picacity
news:5neqh5hsa7r8grc4i...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:10:58 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, actually, no not appreciated. It turns out I misunderstood,
>>and for some reason that is both bizarre and crazy, someone's gone
>>to the effort of making one address work, but not the standard
>>one.
>
> Yep, the light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be a mad
> sociopath wielding a torch to continue an otherwise unnecessary
> flamewar.
>
> There's a fucking surprise.
>
>
In some ways it is nice to see a system administrator (even a small
scale one) with a good sense of humour: I find mine wearisomely
humourless - being told every time I boot my computer that I am not
allowed to use it if I am not allowed to use it is tedious.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, actually, no not appreciated. It turns out I misunderstood,
>> and for some reason that is both bizarre and crazy, someone's
>> gone to the effort of making one address work, but not the
>> standard one.
>
> Something is still badly broken.
> I sent a test message (titled Test 2) from my hotmail account to
> uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk which should have
> been forwarded to the moderators list via chiark.
>
> The message which was sent at 15:10 requested a reply to confirn
> receipt. No such reply has been received.
I do not think that the moderators are committed to rapid replies to
test messages (though others have had bounce messages by that
route).
>
> Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
> uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was
> rejected by chiark.
This address is not supposed to work. (Though equally not supposed
not to work.)
>
> Sounds like more incompetance at chiark to me.
>
> PLEASE sort the damn thing out.
>
>
>
Read carefully the original message about accepting Hotmail messages
did not say that messages from Hotmail forwarded via third parties
would work. It's just that since these were what the committee was
talking about some of us may have jumped to conclusions prematurely.
--
Percy Picacity
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> considered 7 Dec 2009 15:59:31 GMT the
>istm that the "Standard" is to implement whatever is passed on the
>vote, and a large part of the problem we seem to be having is because
>what has been implemented is not what was agreed on.
>
>Does the committee have any good reason to ignore what was passed by
>the vote?
The vote didn't have anything to do with the standard moderation
setup. The vote was simply about the creation of the group under the
charter as stated in the RFD. And the charter doesn't mention the
destination address of the mail forwarding. That's part of the
moderation policy statement, which was included in the CFV but isn't
binding on anyone - if it was, we'd never be able to add or replace
even a single moderator without an RFD, and I'm sure that's not what
the users of the group want! As far as the committee, and uk.* as a
whole, what matters is what's in the charter. And the charter does not
specify that the standard request address is not to be used.
Denis McMahon
> You should also have my private email address, and can use that to relay
> information to the moderators if your Hotmail problem persists.
That's only a solution if every hotmail.com / live.com user who might
wish to email the moderators has and knows to use your private email
address.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> In article <w-KdnbTTUo8FjoDW...@giganews.com>,
> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
[stuff]
> I'm afraid that this is a misunderstanding, caused by the rather
> condensed format of chiark's rejection.
Yeah, I think I worked that out if you read further down. ;)
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Graham Drabble
wrote in news:-aF*r5...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> So here's a wacky idea for achieving both. Allow moderators to
> have a standard addresses something like:
>
> moder...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
> submi...@uk.rec.cycling.moderated.usenet.org.uk
The first of those isn't such a bad idea (though I don't know how easy
it is to actually set up). The second really doesn't work, using
%s...@moderators.isc.org or
%s...@usenet.org.uk
as expanders is common in usenet software. Even if using
submission@%s.usenet.org.uk works (I suspect it doesn't BICBW) we would
still need to maintain both aliases because getting server software
changed is a huge task so it is lots of work for little benefit.
Even so I'm still tending to the view that the current systems worked
well until now and that, unless this becomes a widespread problem, we
stick with the status quo.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Graham Drabble
news:7jskbms...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk:
> Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to
> publish as their contact address? If they got their way and the
> page at http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html was
> altered to have their preferred text rather than the
> -request@usenet listed, what harm would it do?
The -request address is still the one that matters whatever the
specific page for the group says. Having that address work is a
convention that predates urcm by a very long way (and probably predates
the vast majority of uk.* users by quite a long way!).
It also helps to have a standard for all moderated groups in uk.*, it
just keeps things easy. As a moderator you need to be contactable, this
does mean that you will receive more spam than normal. That's part of
the job.
Robin Stevens
> Most sysadmins retain a sense of humour, albeit vicious and acerbic.
> The 'you're not allowed to use this if you're not allowed to use it'
> is usually the fault of the security team.
> Who have their sense of humour removed on one of the early training
> courses.
As a member of a security team, I'd feel offended, but you'd merely tell
me this proved your point :-)
--
Robin Stevens <re...@cynic.org.uk>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
Andrew Hodgson
wrote:
>Why does it matter what address the urcm moderators choose to publish
>as their contact address? If they got their way and the page at
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cycling.moderated.html was altered to
>have their preferred text rather than the -request@usenet listed,
>what harm would it do?
Probably not much if anything. It may also be useful for issues such
as if the usenet.org.uk relays were down for any reason.
>As I see it, anyone who knows enough about
>usenet to know to try the -req...@usenet.org.uk address to get hold
>of a uk.* moderated group's moderators is going to be able to google
>up the moderators' page and see "If there are problems ... postmaster"
>and be able to get to the moderators if they have problems.
The thing is that on
http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
We have the paragraph:
"If you want to contact the moderator(s) by email (as opposed to
posting an article), then take the same thing (after the '-'
replacement) followed by '-req...@usenet.org.uk' (this adding of
'-request' has been chosen to be similar to the convention for
contacting the administrator of a mailing list). So, for example, to
contact the moderator of
uk.foo.moderated
you would send your email to
uk-foo-moder...@usenet.org.uk"
I may just as likely come on that page when looking for information
about contacting the moderators if I was Googling.
>
>I find it hard to see what harm the urcm moderators' approach is
>causing (beyond endless flamewars here).
On the other hand I find it difficult and frustrating to understand
why the mods (as someone who doesn't use the group) seem to be hell
bent on provoking the committee and regular readers of unnc. I also
find it difficult to believe that most of the urcm moderators really
care so much about the issue of spam coming to the moderator contact
address, that they would go to such lengths to skirt round the issues,
discrediting both themselves and the group in the process.
I believe the relevant sysadmins at Chiark are well aware of the mail
paths that are involved with usenet.org.uk, it isn't hard to work out
which servers the mails will come from, so why make it so dammed
difficult for everyone involved?
Andrew.
Percy Picacity
news:hfjknn$mu6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In uk.net.news.config, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> Most sysadmins retain a sense of humour, albeit vicious and
> acerbic. The 'you're not allowed to use this if you're not
> allowed to use it' is usually the fault of the security team.
Come to think of it, changing the Microsoft login domain today, and
then sending us an email over the same network explaining how to log
in when they changed it tomorrow was quite funny (triggering much
use of power button and experimentation).
--
Percy Picacity
Andrew Hodgson
<re...@cynic.org.uk> wrote:
>Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in uk.net.news.config:
>
>> Most sysadmins retain a sense of humour, albeit vicious and acerbic.
>> The 'you're not allowed to use this if you're not allowed to use it'
>> is usually the fault of the security team.
>
>> Who have their sense of humour removed on one of the early training
>> courses.
>
>As a member of a security team, I'd feel offended, but you'd merely tell
>me this proved your point :-)
IME the security teams usually involved in this used to be sysadmins
then got bored, so got out of doing anything "technical", other than
giving the people who they used to work with daily em ails full of
high priority jobs. These would inevitably boil down to stuffing the
motd with meaningless boilerplate text, doing the same at the bottom
of every email passing through the system, or going through gigabytes
of log files from around 10 systems to try and piece together an event
which "may" have occured.
Andrew.
Denis McMahon
> I recommend that you use the official address. Official meaning the
> one in the Call For Votes: urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
Observation
That's the email address in the "moderation policy". There's no email
address in the charter. The "moderation policy" should really be
guidance to the moderators on how they decide on the disposition of a
message.
This would resolve the question about which email address should be used
to contact the moderators.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> I sent a test message (titled Test 2) from my hotmail account to
> uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk which should have
> been forwarded to the moderators list via chiark.
>
> The message which was sent at 15:10 requested a reply to confirn receipt.
> No such reply has been received.
Return receipt request is a request, it doesn't have to be honoured by
the recipients. The lack of any such response is not an indication of
failure.
> Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
> uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
> by chiark.
>
> Sounds like more incompetance at chiark to me.
Why on earth you'd expect pick and mix email addressing to work is
beyond me. Using the name from one address with the domain from another
is just that.
If you must find more to complain about, please at least use valid test
cases.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Alan LeHun
nos...@notnominet.name says...
> Odd, don't you think, that "the troll with the hotmail addresses"[1]
> can, although being a complete pain in the arse at times, also, at
> 'other' times, make a great deal of sense?
>
Or possibly, the troll has simply discovered a just cause and
is reveling in the novelty of it.
And yes, I agree, the cause /is/ a just one.
--
Alan LeHun
Denis McMahon
> That's the destination address, which should be transparent to the end
> users. The official address is the one which is parallels the
> submission address by adding '-request' to the local part of it.
>
>> I recommend that you use the official address. Official meaning the
>> one in the Call For Votes: urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>>
>> Messages via the unofficial alias (imposed on the moderators without
>> the moderators' consent and without any kind of authority) don't work
>> because at the time the rejection/acceptance decision is made they're
>> indistinguishable from forged mails claiming to be from hotmail but
>> which have nothing to do with hotmail at all.
>
> Message sent using the standard forwardinng address will always come
> from the same server, so you can whitelist that just as easily as you
> can whitelist Hotmail's own servers.
Sorry, but on this point Ian is correct. The proposed email address
given in the CFV for contacting the moderators is indeed
"urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk"
As the CFV passed, then IMO irrespective of control's and the
committee's preferences in the matter, and their wish to apply a
standard address format across the hierarchy, the address proposed in
the CFV has to be considered the official address.
Otherwise, votes are meaningless in the management of the hierarchy, the
committee might as well disband and we might as well become the anarchy
that is alt.*.
It seems to me that on this specific issue, it's the committee that need
to fix the system in their control, ie the website www.usenet.org.uk to
show the correct email address for contacting the the moderators of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*
Standards are documented. I can't find this "standard". I can find the
following in "GUIDELINES FOR GROUP CREATION WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY" at
"http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html".
===============================================
The RFD should include as much as possible of the following
information concerning the proposed group:
* The Name
* The Charter
* Whether it is to be Moderated
* The name of the Moderator (if appropriate)
* A One-line Summary of the charter (max. 79 characters)
* The Initial Time to be allowed for discussion (which must be at
least 10 days).
Any of these items missing from the RFD must be resolved during the
discussion.
===============================================
The RFD for uk.rec.cycling.moderated as posted by control to unna included:
===============================================
The moderators can be reached at
urcm-m........s@chiark.g......d.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.
===============================================
The same text appeared in the CFV.
If you want to create a standard format for future moderated newsgroups,
I suggest you RFD a change to the group creation guidelines. However,
unless such a change is retrospective on existing groups (and I'd like
to see anyone justify that) it still won't affect urcm.
Now, perhaps the committee would, collectively, in this specific matter,
stop appearing to behave in the way they're accusing Ian Jackson of
behaving in other matters and correct the email address for the
moderators of urcm shown on the website at www.usenet.org.uk to match
the one in the RFD and CFV as per the documented group creation guidelines.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> No, it is another hopeless attempt to avoid fixing the real problem.
> There is no need to change any standards, either fix chiark to accept
> the standard address or move the moderation systems to another system
> with a competant administrator.
If there is a "standard" address it should be defined in the guidelines
for group creation.
See my replies to Mark Goodge for a fuller discussion of this issue, but
basically, you're wrong again.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> That's the destination address, which should be transparent to the end
>> users. The official address is the one which is parallels the
>> submission address by adding '-request' to the local part of it.
>>
>>> I recommend that you use the official address. Official meaning the
>>> one in the Call For Votes: urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk.
>>>
>>> Messages via the unofficial alias (imposed on the moderators without
>>> the moderators' consent and without any kind of authority) don't work
>>> because at the time the rejection/acceptance decision is made they're
>>> indistinguishable from forged mails claiming to be from hotmail but
>>> which have nothing to do with hotmail at all.
>>
>> Message sent using the standard forwardinng address will always come
>> from the same server, so you can whitelist that just as easily as you
>> can whitelist Hotmail's own servers.
>
>Sorry, but on this point Ian is correct. The proposed email address
>given in the CFV for contacting the moderators is indeed
>"urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk"
It's in the CFV, but it's not in the charter. There's no particular
need to have the moderation policy in the CFV at all, and if it is
there then it's not what is being voted on directly.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
>> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*
>
>Standards are documented. I can't find this "standard".
http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
---begin quote----
Within uk.*, the moderation submission address for posting is the name
of the group, with '.'s replaced by '-'s, followed by '@usenet.org.uk'
(or by '@moderators.isc.org'), but that is usually taken care of
automatically by your news-reading software. If you want to contact
the moderator(s) by email (as opposed to posting an article), then
take the same thing (after the '-' replacement) followed by
'-req...@usenet.org.uk' (this adding of '-request' has been chosen to
be similar to the convention for contacting the administrator of a
mailing list). So, for example, to contact the moderator of
uk.foo.moderated
you would send your email to
---end-----
Denis McMahon
> If I was one of the moderators, that would be
> good enough reason for me to be agitating internally for a change to
> accepted standards.
Presumably by this you mean to use the contact email address specified
in the RFD according to the guidelines for group creation that are
posted on the www.usenet.org.website.
That would be the chiark email address then. Now we've settled that,
perhaps you could find someone on the committee to update the
www.usenet.org.uk website with the correct contact email address as per
it's own documents.
If you want to create a standard format email address for contacting
moderators of moderated newsgroups, you should RFD a change to the group
creation guidelines.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> ... it's Usenet, none of it really matters as I've been
> pointing out in my sig for the last ten years. But if we don't strive
> for consistency then we're not doing the job to the best of our
> ability.
Well perhaps if you want a consistent format for the moderators contact
address, you should strive to get the group creation guidelines changed
to document this little fact.
Until then, the group creation guidelines state that the moderator is as
defined in the RFD, and the RFD had the chiark email address. So did the
CFV. That means that, currently, in the case of urcm, the chiark address
is the correct one by virtue of the documented group creation procedure,
regardless of how much some people think that it shouldn't be.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> I'm going to see how this pans out, but am minded to RFD for the
> @usenet.org.uk address to become an established standard, which, if
> not adhered to would result in suspension of the group concerned by
> /dev/nulling the submission address.
I'd support an RFD for changing the hierarchy group creation guidelines
to require moderated groups created in the future to have such a
standard "moderator contact address".
However, I'd also vehemently oppose any attempt to make such a proposal
retrospective on groups created prior to the adoption of such a change.
I suspect I might not be the only one to take such a position.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> The thing is that on
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
Then the guidelines for group creation need to be fixed.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
.m
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:55:30 -0000, Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> said:
> Or possibly, the troll has simply discovered a just cause and
> is reveling in the novelty of it.
Quite likely. Every dog has their day an all.
> And yes, I agree, the cause /is/ a just one.
And the sooner resolved the better for all of us IMO. At least Some
of us can then reinstate our twitlists and be no further
inconvenienced by the tedium of it all.
I think jms n chibal are a good match for each other and wish them
every happiness - elsewhere.
--
--
Sent from my phone (yes I know that may be sad)
Therefore please excuse errors in formatting,
spelling, typos, simple logic or reasoning.
.m
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:25:40 +0000, Denis McMahon
<denis.m....@gmail.com> said:
> If you want to create a standard format email address for contacting
There already IS a STANDARD address, you've been around long enough
to know that, though, so why are you now taking the piss?
.m
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:24:54 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> said:
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
Aye, that'll be the bit I was trying to unforget.
Jonathan Amery
.m <nos...@notnominet.name> wrote:
>[1] It may be my shortcoming that I 'assume' you mean 'jms'.
>
I have no idea which troll with a hotmail address trolled the
committee, since that's confidential information.
--
Jonathan Amery. inbox, n.:
##### A catch basin for everything you
#######__o don't want to deal with, but
#######'/ are afraid to throw away.
Robin Stevens
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
I think the first two lines of the "Creating a new newsgroup" section sum
things up admirably :-)
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> > I sent a test message (titled Test 2) from my hotmail account to
> > uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk which should have
> > been forwarded to the moderators list via chiark.
> >
> > The message which was sent at 15:10 requested a reply to confirn receipt.
> > No such reply has been received.
>
> Return receipt request is a request, it doesn't have to be honoured by
> the recipients. The lack of any such response is not an indication of
> failure.
The lack of response, in this context, implies that the reply failed due
to chiark being still blocked by Hotmail. If you are capable of a
reply please prove me wrong by doing so.
> > Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
> > uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
> > by chiark.
> >
> > Sounds like more incompetance at chiark to me.
>
> Why on earth you'd expect pick and mix email addressing to work is
> beyond me. Using the name from one address with the domain from another
> is just that.
>
> If you must find more to complain about, please at least use valid test
> cases.
This is a valid test case. It is the STANDARD address which any competant
system should accept.
Only total fuckwits insist on using non-standard addresses out of pure
bloody minded awkwardness.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> > No, it is another hopeless attempt to avoid fixing the real problem.
> > There is no need to change any standards, either fix chiark to accept
> > the standard address or move the moderation systems to another system
> > with a competant administrator.
>
> If there is a "standard" address it should be defined in the guidelines
> for group creation.
Why should the uk guidelines need to restate a standard which has
been accepted by international usenet concensus since the dawn
of usenet.
"Look mommy - all of the soldiers are out of step except our Johnny".
.m
On 07 Dec 2009 22:05:30 +0000 (GMT), Jonathan Amery
> I have no idea which troll with a hotmail address trolled the
> committee, since that's confidential information.
Who mentioned anything to do with the committee?
The voices in your head?
The Pixies?
Jacko?
Fuck off Amery. There's a good chap. You're as much use as tits on a
Bull.
Andrew Hodgson
[...]>
>
>> > Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
>> > uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
>> If you must find more to complain about, please at least use valid test
>> cases.
>
>This is a valid test case. It is the STANDARD address which any competant
>system should accept.
Err - there would be no requirement for the Chiark system to have
group-nam...@chiark.greenend.org.uk - it is only usenet.org.uk
that has adopted this convention. However, the messages going from
Hotmail to uk-rec-cycling-m...@usenet.org.uk still seems
broken, because the Chiark sysadmins only whitelisted the Hotmail IP
address range from the specific sender callback verification
processes, and the messages going through the usenet.org.uk servers
don't meet this requirement, so your case stands _only_ if you sent to
the usenet.org.uk address.
Thanks.
Andrew.
Steve Firth
> Your vile bile is unacceptable.
To whom? I find .m's response to be refreshingly simple and accurate
given the torrents of bovine excreta emerging from the urcm moderation
team.
Andrew Hodgson
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
>> The thing is that on
>> http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
>
>Then the guidelines for group creation need to be fixed.
I agree.
In fact, the document at http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html
probably needs to expand on the topic of moderation:
"The RFD should include as much as possible of the following
information concerning the proposed group:
* The Name
* The Charter
* Whether it is to be Moderated
* The name of the Moderator (if appropriate)
* A One-line Summary of the charter (max. 79 characters)
* The Initial Time to be allowed for discussion (which must be at
least 10 days). "
Should possibly be changed to something like:
The RFD should include as much as possible of the following
information concerning the proposed group:
* The Name
* The Charter
* Whether it is to be Moderated
* A One-line Summary of the charter (max. 79 characters)
* The Initial Time to be allowed for discussion (which must be at
least 10 days).
If the group is to be moderated, then the following information should
be provided:
* The name of the initial moderator(s)
* The forwarding address for the standard group submission address.
* The forwarding address for the standard moderator contact address.
* An optional web link to more information on the group
This is rough and ready, I can pick a few holes in it already, I think
this is a bit simplistic.
On the topic of the urcm moderation contact address, as the only group
that differs from the document at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
[1], I believe that this group should fall into line with the
universal recognized standards that have been adopted in the UK
hierarchy for years.
Andrew.
[1] Is this document a standard, or what? Was it introduced by any
sort of RFD?
Andrew Hodgson
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:16:07 +0000, Denis McMahon put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, and just to point this out yet again, it's not "Control's" alias.
>>> it's the standard request address for moderated groups in uk.*
>>
>>Standards are documented. I can't find this "standard".
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html
Whilst I quoted the same piece in another part of this thread, does
this document have any meaning as far as the policies that govern the
moderator contact address? Was it agreed on by RFD?
Andrew.
Denis McMahon
>> Return receipt request is a request, it doesn't have to be honoured by
>> the recipients. The lack of any such response is not an indication of
>> failure.
> The lack of response, in this context, implies that the reply failed due
> to chiark being still blocked by Hotmail. If you are capable of a
> reply please prove me wrong by doing so.
Huh? Why would I respond to an email that you sent to the urcm mods?
>>> Another test message (titled Test 3) from my hotmail account to
>>> uk-rec-cycling-m...@chiark.greenend.org.uk was rejected
>>> by chiark.
>>>
>>> Sounds like more incompetance at chiark to me.
>> Why on earth you'd expect pick and mix email addressing to work is
>> beyond me. Using the name from one address with the domain from another
>> is just that.
>>
>> If you must find more to complain about, please at least use valid test
>> cases.
> This is a valid test case. It is the STANDARD address which any competant
> system should accept.
> Only total fuckwits insist on using non-standard addresses out of pure
> bloody minded awkwardness.
It's not a standard address. The standard addresses all end with
"@usenet.org.uk"
Do you need a ladder down there?
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Geoff Berrow
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Geoff Berrow wrote:
>
>> ... it's Usenet, none of it really matters as I've been
>> pointing out in my sig for the last ten years. But if we don't strive
>> for consistency then we're not doing the job to the best of our
>> ability.
>
>Well perhaps if you want a consistent format for the moderators contact
>address, you should strive to get the group creation guidelines changed
>to document this little fact.
I don't need to. The technical details of this are already
documented.
http://www.usenet.org.uk./usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
>
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Steve Firth
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:41 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >I find .m's response to be refreshingly simple and accurate
> >given the torrents of bovine excreta emerging from the urcm moderation
> >team.
>
> I'm not sure who you mean by the 'urcm moderation team' This sounds
> like nonsense. ISTM that urcm is being moderated in a way acceptable
> to most of it'susers.
>
> Do you disagree ?
Yes, I think you're a brainless twat.
HTH.
Molly Mockford
wrote in <h93rh5pr4g8ei1k15...@4ax.com>:
>I don't need to. The technical details of this are already
>documented.
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk./usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
Intrusive full stop in that URL.
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups>
works.
--
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.
Denis McMahon
> Denis McMahon <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>>
>>> No, it is another hopeless attempt to avoid fixing the real problem.
>>> There is no need to change any standards, either fix chiark to accept
>>> the standard address or move the moderation systems to another system
>>> with a competant administrator.
>> If there is a "standard" address it should be defined in the guidelines
>> for group creation.
>
> Why should the uk guidelines need to restate a standard which has
> been accepted by international usenet concensus since the dawn
> of usenet.
Funny, I can't find it documented as a convention anywhere except as a
guideline on www.usenet.org.
Maybe the "Moderated Newsgroup Faq" is the wrong sort of place to look.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:30:30 +0000, Denis McMahon
> <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Geoff Berrow wrote:
>>
>>> ... it's Usenet, none of it really matters as I've been
>>> pointing out in my sig for the last ten years. But if we don't strive
>>> for consistency then we're not doing the job to the best of our
>>> ability.
>> Well perhaps if you want a consistent format for the moderators contact
>> address, you should strive to get the group creation guidelines changed
>> to document this little fact.
>
> I don't need to. The technical details of this are already
> documented.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk./usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
As far as I can see, that's not a definitive document for the hierarchy.
It's not voted on.
The formally adopted group creation guidelines state that the moderator
is specified in the RFD. The RFD gave the email for the moderators. So
did the CFV which was formally voted on. End of.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Geoff Berrow
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.usenet.org.uk./usenet-information.html#Moderated-newsgroups
>
>As far as I can see, that's not a definitive document for the hierarchy.
>It's not voted on.
I think that something that has been around as long as I can remember
(and probably from the beginning of uk.*) is about as definitive as
you can get. And if it was around at the beginning, then it was voted
on because AIUI the whole proposal was subject to a vote (and won with
a substantial majority).
Owen Rees
in <hfjknn$mu6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Most sysadmins retain a sense of humour, albeit vicious and acerbic. The
>'you're not allowed to use this if you're not allowed to use it' is usually
>the fault of the security team.
In my experience such messages originate with the legal team not the
security team.
--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>