CFV: Remove uk.net.regulation
Jaques d'Alltrades
from Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org> contains these words:
> The one time an on-topic post was posted there it was lambasted as being
> an attempt to revive the group, thus illustrating the point made by
> someone else that when it was in use the group had been inhabited by a
> group of people trying to keep it to themselves.
I vote a few more posts of that ilk ought to go in to flush the cuckoos
from the nest. I'll have another go at the newsfeed...
--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
| Probably because a number of people who tried to post there couldn't
| access it until after the story was no longer current (I hadn't seen
| anything there for so long that leafnode had dropped it from the list of
| active groups, and I had to reactivate it manually, several others
| posted that they couldn't find it on their news servers).
Groups.google archives posts ?forever?, and allows you to post followups to
these old posts.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs
at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org>
[groups other than unna added back in as Chris set ff to unr only]
>Beware: replying to the post goes to dmahon_v...@amigo.co.uk, not
>to the correct address xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk (perhaps this can be
>fixed in the 2nd CFV).
To reinforce what Chris said in case others missed it (I knew it had
been pointed out but had to search to find the mention as it was
"hidden" at the top of Chris's posting)
# = my emphasis
===
From: David Mahon <dmahon_v...@amigo.co.uk>
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.regulation,uk.net
Subject: CFV: Remove uk.net.regulation
Followup-To: poster
[snip]
To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
Request Address, which is xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<URL:mailto:xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk>.
For most news-reading software, just replying by email to this post
will address your email correctly, but *please check* that the
address above is actually in the To field before you send the mail.
===
In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
request to the correct address though David probably knows that by now.
Shouldn't be a big deal for most people interested in voting on unr
(they should be the sort of people that read) but perhaps something for
Control or people doing the final look at a CFV at the UKV end to be
aware of in future.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Peter Smyth
"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:f0na2rR7ClSAFw7P@[127.0.0.1]...
> # = my emphasis
> ===
> From: David Mahon <dmahon_v...@amigo.co.uk>
> # ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Newsgroups:
> uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.regulation,uk.net
> Subject: CFV: Remove uk.net.regulation
> Followup-To: poster
>
> [snip]
>
> To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
> Request Address, which is xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk
> # ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <URL:mailto:xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk>.
> For most news-reading software, just replying by email to this post
> will address your email correctly, but *please check* that the
> address above is actually in the To field before you send the mail.
> ===
>
> In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
> request to the correct address though David probably knows that by now.
> Shouldn't be a big deal for most people interested in voting on unr
> (they should be the sort of people that read) but perhaps something for
> Control or people doing the final look at a CFV at the UKV end to be
> aware of in future.
I hit reply without realising and sent a ballot request to the amigo.co.uk
address but I received a ballot paper back anyway so there doesn't seem to
be a problem.
Peter Smyth
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Smyth <psm...@freenetname.co.uk>
Wm:
>> In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
>> request to the correct address though David probably knows that by now.
>> Shouldn't be a big deal for most people interested in voting on unr
>> (they should be the sort of people that read) but perhaps something for
>> Control or people doing the final look at a CFV at the UKV end to be
>> aware of in future.
>
>I hit reply without realising and sent a ballot request to the amigo.co.uk
>address but I received a ballot paper back anyway so there doesn't seem to
>be a problem.
I am pleased you did but should you have? AFAIK you should only get a
paper from the official source.
I am not saying your paper is invalid Peter but I am reinforcing where
the paper should come from. I'll wait for the second (hopefully
corrected) CVF in this case.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 22:29:15 +0000, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
>> request to the correct address
>
>Maybe not the to the correct address, but to one which worked as well.
Not sure what your point is?
Wm...
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:04:43 +0000, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I am pleased you did but should you have? AFAIK you should only get a
>> paper from the official source.
>
>Why would David not be the same official source, even when contacted
>through a different email address which is also found in that same CFV?
Because the wrong reply address was provided. Don't fuck about. UKV
and or Control made a checking mistake. I am not hammering anyone, I am
suggesting people add something to their checklists.
>> I am not saying your paper is invalid Peter but I am reinforcing where
>> the paper should come from. I'll wait for the second (hopefully
>> corrected) CVF in this case.
>
>Have a nice wait.
I'll vote on the second CFV in this case and think you have missed the
issue Anthony.
Wm...
>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:24:15 +0000, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'll vote on the second CFV in this case and think you have missed the
>> issue Anthony.
>
>If the issue is to make every minor matter a major one, such as having
>this trivial email address difference requiring a new CFV, then yes I do
>totally miss it. Does everyone who disagrees with you miss the issue?
Did you read the message you replied to and the one before it?
Paul Harper
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 7 Mar 2004 17:37:26 <on8n401gg9blmhb87...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
>
>>On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:24:15 +0000, "Wm..."
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll vote on the second CFV in this case and think you have missed the
>>> issue Anthony.
>>
>>If the issue is to make every minor matter a major one, such as having
>>this trivial email address difference requiring a new CFV, then yes I do
>>totally miss it. Does everyone who disagrees with you miss the issue?
>
>Did you read the message you replied to and the one before it?
Stuff from Gold tends to be "send-only", which is why he's filtered in
my system: too much noise and too little comprehension from him.
Paul.
--
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. JMS: "SFX is a fairly useless publication on just about every imaginable front.
Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so little, with so much, for so long."
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Molly Mockford
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in
<179n401v7488ebjcs...@4ax.com>:
>My point, which was neither cryptic not subtle, was that replying to the
>CFV will get ballot requests to an address which does the intended job.
I don't often find myself lining up alongside ARG, but he is quite right
- direct application to the votetaker has always been an official means
of obtaining a ballot paper. The automatic system is useful and
time-saving, but not the only official means of issuing papers.
When votes are submitted, though, they *must* go to the official vote
address or they will not be valid.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Molly Mockford
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
<QtfJwZBbB4SAFwKB@[127.0.0.1]>:
>I am pleased you did but should you have? AFAIK you should only get a
>paper from the official source.
Direct application to the votetaker has always been an official source
of ballot papers.
Paul Booth
>
> Stuff from Gold tends to be "send-only", which is why he's filtered in
> my system: too much noise and too little comprehension from him.
>
Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot, he's been commenting on your fine colouring.
Charles Lindsey
>I vote a few more posts of that ilk ought to go in to flush the cuckoos
>from the nest. I'll have another go at the newsfeed...
AFAIAC the group still exists within the uk.* hierarchy. Would a booster
newgroup be of any use for the benefit of clueless ISPs?
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 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
Graham Drabble
news:Hu9IA...@clerew.man.ac.uk:
> In <200403060...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> Jaques d'Alltrades
> <creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I vote a few more posts of that ilk ought to go in to flush the
>>cuckoos from the nest. I'll have another go at the newsfeed...
>
> AFAIAC the group still exists within the uk.* hierarchy. Would a
> booster newgroup be of any use for the benefit of clueless ISPs?
Wait until the RESULT is published. It would be silly to booster now
and rmgroup in a couple of weeks time. If the removal fails then a
booster would seem a good idea.
--
Graham Drabble
uk.net.beginners Information/discussion for newcomers to newsgroups
Personal web page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/
Paul Harper
I wouldn't know/care - like I said, he's filtered.
John Hall
Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> writes:
>On 08 Mar 2004 09:32:43 GMT, Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot, he's been commenting on your fine colouring.
>
>I wouldn't know/care - like I said, he's filtered.
Ah, clearly a Coffee Pot.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
Jaques d'Alltrades
from "Charles Lindsey" <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> contains these words:
> >I vote a few more posts of that ilk ought to go in to flush the cuckoos
> >from the nest. I'll have another go at the newsfeed...
> AFAIAC the group still exists within the uk.* hierarchy. Would a booster
> newgroup be of any use for the benefit of clueless ISPs?
I wouldn't call our ISP clueless - quite the reverse. We weren't
carrying unr, but it was included on the day it was requested.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any posts coming with it....
Dave J
within uk.net.regulation, 'Graham Drabble' wrote:
>> AFAIAC the group still exists within the uk.* hierarchy. Would a
>> booster newgroup be of any use for the benefit of clueless ISPs?
>
>Wait until the RESULT is published. It would be silly to booster now
>and rmgroup in a couple of weeks time. If the removal fails then a
>booster would seem a good idea.
However, a necessity for a booster means the removal proposal stands
on shaky ground. If people haven't been able to use the group then is
it any wonder if it sits there unused.
I think clive should revert to more subtle forms of censorship than
this blatant attempt to remove the very forum he fears.
--
Dave Johnson - req...@freeuk.com
Paul Booth
>
> I think clive should revert to more subtle forms of censorship than
> this blatant attempt to remove the very forum he fears.
>
Do you see all those black helicopters outside your window? Mike Corley
is living in your dustbin, reading your mail, you'd better watch out.
uk.net.regulation was branched from uk.net, unnecessarily it would seem.
Despite what some numpties might think, the fact that "UK 'net regulation"
is a relevant subject, does not mean it requires its own group.
It's clear it's not generating the level of use that a separate group
justifies, and I don't see how removing the group, and thus forcing people
to discuss said regulation in the parent group instead, is 'censorship'.
kat
> In uk.net.regulation Dave J <req...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think clive should revert to more subtle forms of censorship than
>> this blatant attempt to remove the very forum he fears.
> uk.net.regulation was branched from uk.net, unnecessarily it would
> seem. Despite what some numpties might think, the fact that "UK 'net
> regulation" is a relevant subject, does not mean it requires its own
> group.
>
> It's clear it's not generating the level of use that a separate group
> justifies, and I don't see how removing the group, and thus forcing
> people to discuss said regulation in the parent group instead, is
> 'censorship'.
The last bit may well be true, but you seem to have ignored the bit where
Dave pointed out
"If people haven't been able to use the group then is
it any wonder if it sits there unused."
which suggests the first bit is anything but clear.
--
kat
>^..^<
Paul Booth
>
> The last bit may well be true, but you seem to have ignored the bit where
> Dave pointed out
>
> "If people haven't been able to use the group then is
> it any wonder if it sits there unused."
>
> which suggests the first bit is anything but clear.
Ignoring the fact that the 6 newsservers I have access to all carry the
group, why was it only when the CFV for removal came around that a small
number of people are claiming they can't see it on their servers? Most of
those servers I've never seen outside the bitching ground that unnc has
become.
If all these people were so vociferous to their newsmasters, then the
group would be full of people wanting to talk about uk net regulation,
wouldn't it? After all, those same people are all subscribed to uk.net and
busily posting away to that group in the meantime, hence why the group
needed creating in the first place.
So no, I'd suggest it is anything but unclear, apart from some FUD spread
by a small number of people with personal grudges to bear.
Paul Booth
>
> Ignoring the fact that the 6 newsservers I have access to all carry the
> group, why was it only when the CFV for removal came around that a small
> number of people are claiming they can't see it on their servers? Most of
> those servers I've never seen outside the bitching ground that unnc has
That should be 'most of those people'.
Jaques d'Alltrades
from Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> contains these words:
> If all these people were so vociferous to their newsmasters, then the
> group would be full of people wanting to talk about uk net regulation,
> wouldn't it? After all, those same people are all subscribed to uk.net and
> busily posting away to that group in the meantime, hence why the group
> needed creating in the first place.
I'm not subscribed to uk.net
Jaques d'Alltrades
from Dave J <req...@freeuk.com> contains these words:
> However, a necessity for a booster means the removal proposal stands
> on shaky ground. If people haven't been able to use the group then is
> it any wonder if it sits there unused.
There are no messages from the group making it to Zetnet's servers.
Owen Rees
<creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
<200403092...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk>:
>There are no messages from the group making it to Zetnet's servers.
Your message, posted via a Zetnet server if my reading of the path is
right, did make it to the group (on NIN at least). Being crossposted, I
read it in unnc, and the one in unr was automatically marked as read by
my newsreader, and the same applies to the other messages posted to unr
recently.
I am fairly neutral about whether or not unr continues to exist. The
propagation issues suggest it might deserve another chance, but I have
not seen a great demand for its primary topic in discussions on other
groups I read. I will probably not vote on this one unless someone comes
up with a compelling argument before the deadline.
--
Owen Rees - opinions expressed here are mine; for a full disclaimer
visit <http://homepages.tesco.net/~owen.rees/index.html#disclaimer>
for e-mail use "owen.rees at tesco.net" instead of the From address
Paul Booth
>
> There are no messages from the group making it to Zetnet's servers.
>
There are no bloody messages, that's the point.
kat
There are, this thread is there.
--
kat
>^..^<
Chris Croughton
<creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <404dfa1b$0$225$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>
> from Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> If all these people were so vociferous to their newsmasters, then the
>> group would be full of people wanting to talk about uk net regulation,
>> wouldn't it? After all, those same people are all subscribed to uk.net and
>> busily posting away to that group in the meantime, hence why the group
>> needed creating in the first place.
>
> I'm not subscribed to uk.net
Nor was I until yesterday, I thought it had been deleted as a group ages
ago (I'm not in favour of hierarchy parents being groups).
Chris C
Paul Booth
>
You're kidding, right?
John Bean
No, she's not kidding. I've posted and received posts from it as well.
--
John Bean
I'm not confused, I'm well mixed (Robert Frost)
Peter Duck
Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[> > > There are no bloody messages, that's the point.]
> > There are, this thread is there.
> You're kidding, right?
Assuming that kat's 'there' is news.individual.net a.k.a.
news.cis.dfn.de a.k.a. news.uni-berlin.de, it currently holds 48 unr
posts in 8 threads, dating back to 04 Feb.
(One thread, 'Re: Data Protection Act 1998', is even more-or-less on-topic)
The posting-hosts are varied (e.g. ntl, demon, google, earthlink) as
well as nin itself: Jacque/Tony's posts from Zetnet, and presumably this
one, get there, though Z.'s own servers, as apparently some/many others,
don't show any.
--
Peter Duck <pd...@zetnet.co.uk>
kat
> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are, this thread is there.
>>
>
> You're kidding, right?
Not in the least, I am posting this answer from it.
--
kat
>^..^<
kat
> In message <404e5f53$0$211$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>
> Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [> > > There are no bloody messages, that's the point.]
>
>>> There are, this thread is there.
>
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> Assuming that kat's 'there' is news.individual.net a.k.a.
> news.cis.dfn.de a.k.a. news.uni-berlin.de, it currently holds 48 unr
> posts in 8 threads, dating back to 04 Feb.
I can raise you 68 from that date on ntl. Still 8 threads though.
>
> (One thread, 'Re: Data Protection Act 1998', is even more-or-less
> on-topic)
>
Also the threads about the RFD and vote. :-) And a one post thread
referring to a BBC news article looks fair enough.
--
kat
>^..^<
Paul Booth
>
> Not in the least, I am posting this answer from it.
>
My point exactly, I didn't think people were posting followups based on
psychic readings.
Chris Croughton
<kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Peter Duck said
>>
>> Assuming that kat's 'there' is news.individual.net a.k.a.
>> news.cis.dfn.de a.k.a. news.uni-berlin.de, it currently holds 48 unr
>> posts in 8 threads, dating back to 04 Feb.
>
> I can raise you 68 from that date on ntl. Still 8 threads though.
>
>> (One thread, 'Re: Data Protection Act 1998', is even more-or-less
>> on-topic)
But was jumped on by the proponent of the removal RFD.
> Also the threads about the RFD and vote. :-) And a one post thread
> referring to a BBC news article looks fair enough.
Which again no one replied to (if you mean the one of the "Internet porn
ring"). My initial post (also a BBC article reference) was apparently
lost, by the time I worked out how to convince leafnode to add the group
it was no longer news.
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
So that's why you claimed "There are no bloody messages"?
Message-ID: <404e512e$0$234$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>
Chris C
Charles Lindsey
>The message <kqjr40lilmsn6nssa...@4ax.com>
>from Dave J <req...@freeuk.com> contains these words:
>> However, a necessity for a booster means the removal proposal stands
>> on shaky ground. If people haven't been able to use the group then is
>> it any wonder if it sits there unused.
>There are no messages from the group making it to Zetnet's servers.
Then take it up with Zetnet. Either their sys file is configured wrongly,
or the sys files of its upstreams are configured wrongly.
BTW, mail sent by control to your address bounced. I suspect you sent mail
to Control using a spam trapped address. Sending mail with a spam trapped
address is never a good idea.
Jaques d'Alltrades
from Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> contains these words:
> In uk.net.regulation Jaques d'Alltrades
There are plenty from this thread in unnc being crossposted there.
They are not making it to the group somewhere upstream from our server.
Jaques d'Alltrades
from Paul Booth <pab...@grumpy.co.uk> contains these words:
> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are, this thread is there.
> >
> You're kidding, right?
Look in your headers.
Paul Booth
>
> So that's why you claimed "There are no bloody messages"?
>
> Message-ID: <404e512e$0$234$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>
>
Because apart from this thread, the only other messages are 2 threads on
removing the group, 7 spams and one 3 post thread from over a month ago.
Since it's plainly obvious people can see this thread (duh, everyone is
replying to it), and this cannot be included as traffic, will you kindly
point out any traffic in this group over the last month?
Perhaps you want to be a smartarse and post the message IDs of those too?
One thread in three months doth not a newsgroup make.
Jim Crowther
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> writes:
Yes there are, you are a blind man, and do not know it. :(
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Avoid Swen by disposing of any previous Usenet addresses,
put 'spam' or 'delete' somewhere in the Reply-to: header.
Help yourself avoid the spam: <http://keir.net/k9.html>
Jaques d'Alltrades
from "Charles Lindsey" <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> contains these words:
> Then take it up with Zetnet. Either their sys file is configured wrongly,
> or the sys files of its upstreams are configured wrongly.
> BTW, mail sent by control to your address bounced. I suspect you sent mail
> to Control using a spam trapped address. Sending mail with a spam trapped
> address is never a good idea.
If it was a notification and copy of a vote, it arrived.
All correspondence to Control AFAIR has been from a valid and
unspamtrapped address.
Later:
Just checked: everything ever sent to Control or asking for CFV ballot
etc has been from a valid address. A simple Reply should have produced
no bounce, though I think there was some problem with the spam/virus
filters on the Zetmail server a fortnight or so ago.
I sent one from this e-addy to uk.legal.mode...@usenet.org.uk
on the 10th Feb, but no reply was canvassed or expected.
Dave Fawthrop
IMO uk.net.regulation may well necessary at some future date, I have
therefore voted against removal.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs
at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile.
Chris Croughton
<creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Just checked: everything ever sent to Control or asking for CFV ballot
> etc has been from a valid address. A simple Reply should have produced
> no bounce, though I think there was some problem with the spam/virus
> filters on the Zetmail server a fortnight or so ago.
>
> I sent one from this e-addy to uk.legal.mode...@usenet.org.uk
> on the 10th Feb, but no reply was canvassed or expected.
"This e-addy" being the one quoted above? I tried a reply, and there is
no MX record for foobar.zetnet.co.uk, and the A record points to
localhost (127.0.0.1). Nor is there a Reply-To header giving a working
email address.
Wanting a reply to something with instructions in your sig (which I
at least don't see when replying) isn't conducive to getting replies on
important matters (or on any, as far as I'm concerned)...
If you like you can send me email (my address above works) and I'll see
if I can find any problem wiht replying to it...
Chris C
Chris Croughton
<pab...@grumpy.co.uk> wrote:
> In uk.net.regulation Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.org> wrote:
>>
>> So that's why you claimed "There are no bloody messages"?
>>
>> Message-ID: <404e512e$0$234$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>
>
> Because apart from this thread, the only other messages are 2 threads on
> removing the group, 7 spams and one 3 post thread from over a month ago.
So you admit that your statement about no messages was false. Good.
Since the context was that messages (which are here) weren't
propagating, your comment was misleading at best and a flat lie at
worst, whether the messages are "on topic" or not is irrelevant to
propagation.
> Since it's plainly obvious people can see this thread (duh, everyone is
> replying to it), and this cannot be included as traffic, will you kindly
> point out any traffic in this group over the last month?
Most people seem to have it cross-posted to unnc, which is on their
servers, which is how some people are seeing it. I include as 'traffic'
anything which is on the group, which includes threads about removing
it.
> Perhaps you want to be a smartarse and post the message IDs of those too?
Not unless you lied in them again. Since you admit that they exist,
there is no point in posting message IDs.
> One thread in three months doth not a newsgroup make.
Perhaps you'd like to rmgroup several other uk.* groups while you're at
it, I can think of several with no threads (until someone posts, and
then there is a flurry). Heck, uk.net.news.management has been silent
for quite a time, let's remove that. unnc has been through times when
it was only trolls and chat.
As I have already said (many times), I tried to post relevant material
(when I was reminded that the group existed) and wasn't able to do so.
In most newsreaders it will have disappeared when there are no unread
messages, so people forget that it's there. The solution is to try
reactivating it first, rather than an immediate call to delete it (as
with uk.politics.announce, which is getting a steady trickle of posts
now).
(Yes, I note your domain name. It suits...)
Chris C
Jim Crowther
<ch...@keristor.org> writes:
>In most newsreaders it will have disappeared when there are no unread
>messages, so people forget that it's there.
Hmm. Really? Not for Xnews or Turnpike.
kat
> In message <slrnc4umr...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
> <ch...@keristor.org> writes:
>
>> In most newsreaders it will have disappeared when there are no unread
>> messages, so people forget that it's there.
>
> Hmm. Really? Not for Xnews or Turnpike.
Nor in dear old OE, it's just not in bold type when there are no unread
messages.
--
kat
>^..^<
Chris Croughton
<Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnc4umr...@ccserver.keris.net>, Chris Croughton
> <ch...@keristor.org> writes:
>
>>In most newsreaders it will have disappeared when there are no unread
>>messages, so people forget that it's there.
>
> Hmm. Really? Not for Xnews or Turnpike.
Netscape hides it (I unremember whether it's default, but I certainly
had that problem with it), as did Pine when I tried that. And whatever
my sister uses (Pegasus, or is that for mail only?). And slrn, and at
least some versions of the MS Outlook family.
There may be options to enable or disable that action in some of them,
of course.
Chris C
Don Aitken
wrote:
Nor in Agent. Just which are these "most" newsreaders?
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Charles Lindsey
But be careful. For a valid demonstration that the group is propagating in
its own right, you need to do the test without crossposting to any other
group. Otherwise, it will just "piggy back" on the other group and
propagate wherever that other group goes.
Charles Lindsey
>If it was a notification and copy of a vote, it arrived.
>All correspondence to Control AFAIR has been from a valid and
>unspamtrapped address.
>Later:
>Just checked: everything ever sent to Control or asking for CFV ballot
>etc has been from a valid address.
Requests for ballots etc do NOT go anywhere near Control.
IIRC, the mail you sent me was regarding poor propagation of
uk.net.regulation, and the Reply-To address was
<creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk>.
Paul Booth
>
> So you admit that your statement about no messages was false. Good.
> Since the context was that messages (which are here) weren't
> propagating, your comment was misleading at best and a flat lie at
> worst, whether the messages are "on topic" or not is irrelevant to
> propagation.
My statement was not false. This thread is about messages in this group,
there are no relevant messages in this group that can be constituted as
valid traffic. There has been 1 relevant thread, and that relevant thread
will not be present on most peoples' servers due to the age of it, it's
certainly over 30 days old, which is a generous retention period IMO.
Conversations about message propagation are irrelevant; as long as the
group has been created, it's up to users to use it. If newsmasters are
breaking things locally, that's down to them and their customers. I
suspect this isn't the case though, especially since the OP mentioned that
she could see the group, the messages in unnc, but not the messages here
in unr.
> Most people seem to have it cross-posted to unnc, which is on their
> servers, which is how some people are seeing it. I include as 'traffic'
> anything which is on the group, which includes threads about removing
> it.
If they're seeing it on unnc, do you want to hazard a guess as to why it
isn't being seen on unr, when they have the group (a clue is that unnc
comes before unr in an alphabetically sorted list). Has anyone actually
said that they don't have the unr group on their server?
> Perhaps you'd like to rmgroup several other uk.* groups while you're at
> it, I can think of several with no threads (until someone posts, and
> then there is a flurry). Heck, uk.net.news.management has been silent
> for quite a time, let's remove that. unnc has been through times when
> it was only trolls and chat.
If there's need for them to be removed because of lack of use, then yes.
There are other relevant groups for such topics to be raised in, and in
the case of uk.net.news.management, there is no historical parent group
which would be relevant.
> As I have already said (many times), I tried to post relevant material
> (when I was reminded that the group existed) and wasn't able to do so.
Which group? Who stopped you?
> In most newsreaders it will have disappeared when there are no unread
> messages, so people forget that it's there.
That isn't the default option in any of the newsreaders I can think of.
> The solution is to try
> reactivating it first, rather than an immediate call to delete it (as
> with uk.politics.announce, which is getting a steady trickle of posts
> now).
No, the solution is to fold the group back into its parent, there isn't
the volume of posts to justify a split any more (there never was IMO).
This isn't an announcement group, it's a discussion group, there's a
difference, and the discussion can quite easily take place in uk.net
> (Yes, I note your domain name. It suits...)
My, how observant, give yourself a gold star.
Jaques d'Alltrades
from "Charles Lindsey" <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> contains these words:
> Requests for ballots etc do NOT go anywhere near Control.
I wonder what gave me that idea then? I quote from your earlier post here:
-------------------------------------------------
BTW, mail sent by control to your address bounced. I suspect you sent mail
to Control using a spam trapped address. Sending mail with a spam trapped
address is never a good idea.
-------------------------------------------------
> IIRC, the mail you sent me was regarding poor propagation of
> uk.net.regulation, and the Reply-To address was
> <creaki...@foobar.zetnet.co.uk>.
Ah. Sorry. Either I didn't change the mailbox after writing it, or I
edited it while in the 'foobar' box.
I try to remember to edit direct replies before connecting.
I blame me varifocals, you know.
Andrew Hodgson
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:30:58 <c2ftb0$1snjqi$1...@ID-182089.news.uni-berlin.de>
>uk.net.news.config Peter Smyth <psm...@freenetname.co.uk>
>
>Wm:
>>> In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
>>> request to the correct address though David probably knows that by now.
>>> Shouldn't be a big deal for most people interested in voting on unr
>>> (they should be the sort of people that read) but perhaps something for
>>> Control or people doing the final look at a CFV at the UKV end to be
>>> aware of in future.
>>
>>I hit reply without realising and sent a ballot request to the amigo.co.uk
>>address but I received a ballot paper back anyway so there doesn't seem to
>>be a problem.
>
>I am pleased you did but should you have? AFAIK you should only get a
>paper from the official source.
David could easily just forward the request to the _correct_ ballot
request address, thus the op would have got an official paper. I am
doing this all the time at one job I am at where I am forever
forwarding messages that should go to automated services that end up
at the owners mailbox, most decent MUAs now have a "bounce" option
which keeps relevant headers as though they were from the original
author, this works for me anyway, and even if this was not the case,
it would be trivial to send out a request which would send the reply
back to the original author without using such mechanisms.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Hodgson in Bromyard, Herefordshire, UK.
My Email: use <andrew at hodgsonfamily dot org>.
Andrew Hodgson
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:32:43 <5k1n40tbhnp70qquc...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk>
>
>>On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 22:29:15 +0000, "Wm..."
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In case it isn't clear I doubt replying by e-mail will get the ballot
>>> request to the correct address
>>
>>Maybe not the to the correct address, but to one which worked as well.
>
>Not sure what your point is?
That he did likewise and got a ballot paper by replying to the address
in the Reply-To perhaps?
Owen Rees
wrote in <slrnc50png...@ccserver.keris.net>:
>Netscape hides it (I unremember whether it's default, but I certainly
>had that problem with it), as did Pine when I tried that. And whatever
>my sister uses (Pegasus, or is that for mail only?). And slrn, and at
>least some versions of the MS Outlook family.
>
>There may be options to enable or disable that action in some of them,
>of course.
All true emacs zealots will be using gnus, and know that while 'l' shows
only groups with messages, 'L' will show all the groups to which you
have subscribed, even if they are empty.
--
Owen Rees - opinions expressed here are mine; for a full disclaimer
visit <http://homepages.tesco.net/~owen.rees/index.html#disclaimer>
for e-mail use "owen.rees at tesco.net" instead of the From address
Tim Miller
> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are, this thread is there.
>
> You're kidding, right?
The problem is that some newsservers (especially running leafnode) will
actually stop collecting new posts for a group after a long period of
inactivity, even if the group isn't actually completely extinct. To force
them to collect more, sometimes you have to manually switch it back on.
Tim (tm)
--
tim at economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.economic-truth.co.uk - the students' economics resource
http://www.ugvm.org.uk - the uk.games.video.misc magazine
Tim Miller
>
> Groups.google archives posts ?forever?, and allows you to post
> followups to these old posts.
No, it doesn't.
Andrew Hodgson
<ne...@economic-truth.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul Booth wrote:
>> In uk.net.regulation kat <kat....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are, this thread is there.
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>
>The problem is that some newsservers (especially running leafnode) will
Tell me how many ISPs etc will run Leafnode? No ISP grade server
(i.e, INN, Dnews et al) should do this.
Adam D. Barratt
Andrew Hodgson <ne...@nospam.hodgsonfamily.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:04:20 -0000, "Tim Miller"
> <ne...@economic-truth.co.uk> wrote:
>>The problem is that some newsservers (especially running leafnode) will
> Tell me how many ISPs etc will run Leafnode? No ISP grade server
> (i.e, INN, Dnews et al) should do this.
Erm... DNews will if you tell it to, c.f. /etc/dnews.conf::life.
(Specifically, if there are no posts read in the group within X days -
in the case of there being no postings within that period, they amount
to the same).
Adam
--
I'm afraid my gut level reaction is basically, "'proceed' is cute, but
cute doesn't cut it in the emergency room."
-- Larry Wall in <1997102818...@wall.org>
Tim Miller
>>>>
>>>> There are, this thread is there.
>>>
>>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> The problem is that some newsservers (especially running leafnode)
>> will
>
> Tell me how many ISPs etc will run Leafnode? No ISP grade server
> (i.e, INN, Dnews et al) should do this.
>