Re: urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <02n3551con7hmntin...@4ax.com>,
>jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>Indeed - I suspect he is testing the final version and has already put
>>known names in to it.
>
>For the avoidance of any doubt: that confuses chiark's email
>spamfiltering system with the moderation software.
>
>chiark's email spamfilter (a) is largely automatic, (b) has no manual
>configuration made for Judith or other urc trolls, (c) has been
>running in roughly similar form since 1999, (d) will not be used for
>filtering submissions to the moderated group, (e) is bypassed anyway
>if you email postmaster@ (to allow people to report email problems).
>
>The moderation software (a) will be largely manual, (b) has not been
>set up at all yet, and (c) will start out with an empty blacklist (as
>the moderators have indicated several times).
Please will you point out what it was in my email which caused the
effect. I suggest you post the reason here so that other people will
not fall foul of the same "rules". If you knew that it would bin
hotmail addresses (if it does that ) - then you should have said so.
It is indeed a pity that you had not tested the receipt of emails to
the moderation address which you publicised for use. It of course
meant that any number of emails may have been sent to the moderators -
but were binned.
Do you know how many other emails the spam system filtered out in this
way?
Will all emails to the moderation address go through your over
zealous spam filtering system?
Do you think that is acceptable?
Nuxx Bar
> On 06 Jul 2009 15:25:57 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>
>
>
> >In article <02n3551con7hmntinv6r2ueq3qf0ia8...@4ax.com>,
I see Jackson's still calling people silly names like "troll" when he
doesn't agree with them. He clearly thinks he's something special,
but from what I've seen, the average dog is more intelligent.
jms
<derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I see Jackson's still calling people silly names like "troll" when he
>doesn't agree with them. He clearly thinks he's something special,
>but from what I've seen, the average dog is more intelligent.
I agree - I know exactly what you mean
Nuxx Bar
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >I see Jackson's still calling people silly names like "troll" when he
> >doesn't agree with them. He clearly thinks he's something special,
> >but from what I've seen, the average dog is more intelligent.
>
> I agree - I know exactly what you mean
I reckon the most probable explanation is that Jackson saw the email,
and decided to delete it and pretend he hadn't received it, hoping he
could claim it hadn't arrived at chiark because it had never been sent
properly - but he was too stupid to spot that you'd CCed it
elsewhere. Otherwise why would he be so coy about why the spam filter
had supposedly intercepted it?
Whether he deleted it on sight because it was from you, or because it
contained "difficult" questions that he didn't want the "moderators"
to have to answer, is unclear; knowing him it could quite easily be
either. (Of course the perpetrator may have been someone else with
access to chiark, e.g. Bilbo, rather than Jackson, although in that
case Jackson is pretty certain to be in on it by now.)
*Yet again* subterfuge is shamelessly used at the drop of a hat by
those who laughably claim to be suitable as "moderators". Is there
anyone left who genuinely believes that they are capable of moderating
a newsgroup in a truly impartial way? I think pretty much everyone
who still supports the URCM proposal knows that the "moderation" is
actually just going to be biased censorship - and that's why they
support it. How dare they knowingly support such a deception? Have
they no principles?
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>On Jul 6, 8:12�pm, jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>
>> <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >I see Jackson's still calling people silly names like "troll" when he
>> >doesn't agree with them. �He clearly thinks he's something special,
>> >but from what I've seen, the average dog is more intelligent.
>>
>> I agree - I know exactly what you mean
>
>I reckon the most probable explanation is that Jackson saw the email,
>and decided to delete it and pretend he hadn't received it, hoping he
>could claim it hadn't arrived at chiark because it had never been sent
>properly - but he was too stupid to spot that you'd CCed it
>elsewhere. Otherwise why would he be so coy about why the spam filter
>had supposedly intercepted it?
You clearly have no idea how email forwarding works. That's not
particularly surprising, but demonstrating such an utter lack of clue
in public is hardly going to help your cause.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
jms
Rubbish.
You may have morals.
You may forward all emails to a distribution list automatically.
Jackson's may not do that - particularly at the moment.
You have no idea if emails sent to the moderation address are
automatically forwarded to the moderators individual addresses via a
distribution list - or whether they go into a holding area before
Jackson decides what to do with them.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Jul 5, 12:44�am, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> > Can the moderators be reached at that e-mail address?
>> > Has anyone used it successfully?
>> Yes. Yes.
>
>Confirmed here as well; message sent, replies received. I have a
>reasonably paranoid email provider (spamcop).
Thanks you Guy - late as usual - things have moved on.
Spamcop is not paranoid - it is very sensible and works well.
I never have something stopped which is not spam.
I only very rarely get spam passed on.
The worse thing that can happen with a spam filter is that it actually
stops genuine emails. Jackson needs to get his system sorted. If it
has done this. (He hasn't actually admitted it though)
Care to share with us what you were writing about?
A few private suggestions was it?
Keitht
>
> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
>
>
People do - not that it makes any difference.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:38:31 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>I reckon the most probable explanation is that Jackson saw the email,
>>>and decided to delete it and pretend he hadn't received it, hoping he
>>>could claim it hadn't arrived at chiark because it had never been sent
>>>properly - but he was too stupid to spot that you'd CCed it
>>>elsewhere. Otherwise why would he be so coy about why the spam filter
>>>had supposedly intercepted it?
>>
>>You clearly have no idea how email forwarding works. That's not
>>particularly surprising, but demonstrating such an utter lack of clue
>>in public is hardly going to help your cause.
>
>Rubbish.
>
>You may have morals.
>
>You may forward all emails to a distribution list automatically.
>
>Jackson's may not do that - particularly at the moment.
Good grief. Are you really as stupid as Nuxx, or are you just
pretending to be so that he doesn't feel lonely?
>You have no idea if emails sent to the moderation address are
>automatically forwarded to the moderators individual addresses via a
>distribution list - or whether they go into a holding area before
>Jackson decides what to do with them.
>
>Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
You are wrong.
jms
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I do not profess to be an expert - if my understanding is wrong - as
it obviously is then please explain further then as I am obviously
way off beam.
(I find out if someone is actually wrong in these circumstances it is
quite a good idea to tell them why; it depends how helpful you want to
be)
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <grD*tv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>In article <83e6551e29usicndv...@4ax.com>,
>>jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Please can you explain precisely what it was about my email which
>>>caused it to be discarded.
>>
>>No, not with any certainty, because I have no idea what email you're
>>talking about, since it didn't reach me.
>
>jms has emailed postmaster@chiark providing the vital statistics of
>the message.
You have missed off - "Because I insisted that she did this rather
than I investigated a problem which she had drawn to my attention in
this thread. I was happy at the time for people to think that my
anti-Spam system had rejected her email because of something which she
had said in it.
> I'm replying here because:
> (a) I can't email jms because Microsoft are blocking my replies
You missed off : I know what this is but cannot be arsed to change
chiark as I have to make this very important statement that M$ are
shit.
>and (b) jms indicated that they
>would publish my reply anyway.
>
>In summary, everything is as I speculated it would be.
Indeed - In summary, everything is as I speculated it would be.
There are a number of things which are pathetic about this issue.
1) You insisted that I emailed you rather than respond to the request
for clarification as to what had happened which I posted here. Why
was that?
2) The email I sent to you, to which you replied above, originated
from the same live.co.uk account which I had used for the original
message. You were able to read that - but not the original message.
Why was that?
3) You are making out that it is a Microsoft problem - (sorry should
that be an M$ problem - I believe that is your preferred terms)
because chiark has been configured to not communicate with Microsoft
because of some pathetic grievance you may have with the way that
Microsoft does something.
4) You have pathetically suggested that Microsoft should change their
software so that it will work with chiark. You need to get over this
anti-Microsoft hang-up, grow up, and join the real world.
5) To say that Microsoft rejects emails from chiark because Microsoft
have a problem is pathetic
6) You are obviously well aware of this "problem" with chiark which
you are unwilling to do anything about.
5) As it stands is it correct to say that people wanting to email the
moderators from one of the worlds largest suppliers of email software
and email addresses will not be able to as you cannot be arsed to
swallow your pride and make your system interface with Microsoft.
6) Moderators of the proposed group will NOT be able to email
potential posters who use Microsoft system.
Do you really think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs?
It does of course mean that if anyone (eg motorists or drivers think
that they are being singled out, not treated fairly, and censored)
then they will not be able to email the moderators if they happen to
use Microsoft to post emails.
Have I said - I think you have been pathetic over this who issue.
But it truly reflects your "impartial" attitude demonstrated to date
-and that you intend some people to NOT have their say in the proposed
group.
I urge people to vote NO to the proposal when the call for votes is
made: Is Ian Jackson capable of running any system fairly and
honestly?
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <5l4955lddkarjsst2...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>You will need to remove sender verification from the moderators' group
>>address. As I said in Message-ID:
>><ec94559smub4aaheu...@news.markshouse.net>,
>
>And as I said in my reply, I think we should provide a separate
>address which bypasses spamfiltering and is read by one of the
>moderators who will forward any non-spam messages. I explained in
>some detail why this is preferable to having the moderators each
>individually apply their own spamfiltering downstream.
>
>> I think it's
>>important that a message which would be received by the moderation
>>software will also be received by the moderators, and you won't be
>>able to use sender verification on the moderation submission address
>
>And as I said, the moderation submission address will not be subjected
>to spamfiltering.
Why not make urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk not subjected to
spam filtering at all? You seem to be able to make
postm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk so, such as to by-pass chiark's
design inadequacies.
Do other moderated newsgroups have these sorts of problem - or perhaps
they use well designed, tested, and robust software?
Keitht
> Do other moderated newsgroups have these sorts of problem - or perhaps
> they use well designed, tested, and robust software?
Anything that keeps a possible spam source at bay is fine by me.
I'm not sure that blocking well-known shovellers of spam is a problem at
all - more of a public service.
In the meantime, your on-line banking details need updating as a
security precaution. Please click on the link that looks like a bank
(but has .ru in the address).
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <grD*tv...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>In article <83e6551e29usicndv...@4ax.com>,
>>jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Please can you explain precisely what it was about my email which
>>>caused it to be discarded.
>>
>>No, not with any certainty, because I have no idea what email you're
>>talking about, since it didn't reach me.
>
>jms has emailed postmaster@chiark providing the vital statistics of
>the message. I'm replying here because (a) I can't email jms because
>Microsoft are blocking my replies and (b) jms indicated that they
>would publish my reply anyway.
>
>In summary, everything is as I speculated it would be.
>
>The message jms indicates was from moderat...@live.co.uk. It was
>offered to urcm-moderators@chiark by Microsoft at around 3:25pm on the
>4th. chiark contacted one of the mail servers for live.co.uk to
>verify the sending email address. During this verification chiark
>received an error message from Microsoft indicating permanent failure
>(a `550' response); the human-readable (but not machine-readable) text
>said that mail was being rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy
>reasons. chiark therefore in turn refused to accept the message from
>Microsoft.
So it was not just that chiark rejected the original message,
Chiark sent a message to Microsoft.
Microsoft rejected *that message query* from chiark
So chiark then rejected the original message as it refused to play to
Microsoft rules.
Very grown up.
Very mature.
You need to mend your system.
You are obviously aware of what causes the problem and are too pig
headed to overcome it.
jms
>jms wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Do other moderated newsgroups have these sorts of problem - or perhaps
>> they use well designed, tested, and robust software?
>
>
>
>Anything that keeps a possible spam source at bay is fine by me.
>I'm not sure that blocking well-known shovellers of spam is a problem at
>all - more of a public service.
It is a bit of a pathetic excuse really - are you capable of
receiving emails from hotmail or live address?
I have just looked at my "received spam" - out of 992 - only 4 used
hotmail or live addresses. He is fighting a problem which probably
isn't there; or chiark is over the hill and can't recognise that
things have moved on.
I suspect that the days of spammers using hotmail/live addresses are
well past.
As I said - it is odd that other public systems do not have this
problem
It is unacceptable for someone to say in the proposal that moderators
can be reached at a given email address - when in fact not everyone
can do so.
Jackson was obviously aware of that and did not see it as a problem.
jms
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2009 14:19:25 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>In article <5l4955lddkarjsst2...@news.markshouse.net>,
>>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>You will need to remove sender verification from the moderators' group
>>>address. As I said in Message-ID:
>>><ec94559smub4aaheu...@news.markshouse.net>,
>>
>>And as I said in my reply, I think we should provide a separate
>>address which bypasses spamfiltering and is read by one of the
>>moderators who will forward any non-spam messages.
>
>No; you need to do it on the published official address to be used for
>contacting the moderators.
>
>Your internal chiark address is only used as a destination for the
>forwarding, the official contact address which will be published by
>Control will be uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request {at} usenet.org.uk
>(see the existing group pages for for uk.legal.moderated,
>uk.gay-lesbian-bi and uk.religion.christian for examples of how it
>will be formatted), and so that's the address which you must expect
>people to use when contacting the moderators. It isn't acceptable to
>have a separate address to be used by people who can't get through to
>the moderators on the official one because their sending address is
>blocked by your spam filters.
>
>>> I think it's
>>>important that a message which would be received by the moderation
>>>software will also be received by the moderators, and you won't be
>>>able to use sender verification on the moderation submission address
>>
>>And as I said, the moderation submission address will not be subjected
>>to spamfiltering.
>
>You can put some spamfiltering on it. There's no reason why you can't
>block HTML and binaries upstream of the moderation system, for example
>(and I'd suggest that you do, otherwise most of the moderation
>system's work will consist of rejecting them). And you can use
>standard blocklists such as the Spamhaus XBL, as these are very
>effective and have minimal possibility of unwanted side-effects. The
>moderation system will get a *lot* of spam, since the submission
>address has to be publicly available, so some filtering is a good idea
>provided it's accurate enough to avoid false positives. The same
>applies to the request address - you can, and probably should, filter
>out anything that would also be filtered by the submission address.
>But you should avoid filtering the request address significantly
>differently to the submission address, and, in particular, you
>shouldn't filter the request address on the From or Reply-To headers
>of mail that it receives.
>
>Mark
Many thanks for some common sense guidance.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
> You clearly have no idea how email forwarding works. That's not
> particularly surprising
Heh. Why is it that people who make a song and dance about being
religious so often seem to make nasty little jibes towards people who
haven't done anything to them? They seem to think that because
they're such good little God-botherers, it gives them some right to
talk down to the rest of the world, especially those who stubbornly
refuse to believe in fairy tales (perhaps because of a complete lack
of a shred of evidence...flimsy justification for such a stance I
know).
Nasty jibes, arrogant people, sexism, homophobia, wars, false hope,
execution of "witches", and much more besides...religion has a hell of
a lot to answer for. Of course, the less pleasant religious people
try to suppress all discussion of such topics, and no doubt that's why
your Christian newsgroup is moderated...you were getting too many
difficult questions and opinions, so no wonder you're advising on the
creation of URCM when that's for exactly the same reasons.
I reckon most "Christians" know deep down that God doesn't exist,
they've just decided it's better if they kid themselves that "He"
does. I doubt you're any different. Fancy that: knowingly living the
one short life you've got on an absurd false premise. Your choice I
suppose, but don't have the brass neck to make out that you're somehow
smarter than me.
Mark Goodge
typed:
For avoidance of doubt, I don't think that what I've written above
constitutes any reason at all to oppose the creation of the group. The
proponent doesn't own the group, and he is just one of a number of
moderators and has no greater say in the moderation than any of the
others. The moderators, collectively, will need to decide where their
group email address is to be hosted, and it's their responsibility,
not the proponent's, to ensure that it is accessible to all users of
the group. I have no reason to believe that they would not do so.
Tom Crispin
In effect, the proponent will own the group.
He has hand picked his co-moderators and will be able to dismiss and
replace them at will.
The new group will not be shaped by those who use it. It will be
shaped by what the moderators choose to allow people to post.
chris French
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>
>The new group will not be shaped by those who use it.
What you mean like urc has been shaped by the people who use it?
> It will be
>shaped by what the moderators choose to allow people to post.
In part yes, it's the nature of a moderated group really. Though
I would say it will be mostly shaped by those who post.
--
Chris French
Tom Crispin
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>>
>>The new group will not be shaped by those who use it.
>
>What you mean like urc has been shaped by the people who use it?
That is what Usenet is. If people don't like it they are free to set
up an email list or web forum. But why destroy or attempt to destroy
a group like urc by commanding control over a rival Usenet group?
RudiL
wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 23:01:59 +0100, chris French
>
> >In message <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23vep3uh22g349a4...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> ><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
>
> >>The new group will not be shaped by those who use it.
>
> >What you mean like urc has been shaped by the people who use it?
>
> That is what Usenet is. If people don't like it they are free to set
> up an email list or web forum. But why destroy or attempt to destroy
> a group like urc by commanding control over a rival Usenet group?
>
If as you say people like urc so much they will stay on it. If not
they may switch to the new group. Usenet is full of groups for which
both moderated and unmoderated versions co-exist perfectly happily.
What is clear is that there are a very large number of people (myself
included) who will leave urc whatever happens. What we would like is a
usenet group for cycling since even moderated newsnet groups have a
very different feel to web forums(fora?). However in the absence of
urcm something like cyclechat might become the only option. Without
urcm urc is doomed to consist pretty much just of Judith, Nuxxy, and
people who like wrestling with them
Rudi
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>He has hand picked his co-moderators and will be able to dismiss and
>replace them at will.
Nonsense. If I were to attempt to do such a thing, the moderators
could write to Control to reassert their authority (by having the
moderation address pointed at their new, presumably emergency, hosting
arrangements).
--
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
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23...@4ax.com>,
>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>He has hand picked his co-moderators and will be able to dismiss and
>>replace them at will.
>
>Nonsense. If I were to attempt to do such a thing, the moderators
>could write to Control to reassert their authority (by having the
>moderation address pointed at their new, presumably emergency, hosting
>arrangements).
Have you actually checked that this is the case?
(Sorry - do you want me to email my questions to you - as you seem
intent on not responding to the serious points I raise here. If so,
please can you supply a valid email address as I believe the current
one just throws some messages away with no record of them; far from
satisfactory)
Steve Firth
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 23:01:59 +0100, chris French
> <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> ><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> writes
> >>
> >>The new group will not be shaped by those who use it.
> >
> >What you mean like urc has been shaped by the people who use it?
>
> That is what Usenet is. If people don't like it they are free to set
> up an email list or web forum.
They are also free to set up a moderated newsgroup.
> But why destroy or attempt to destroy a group like urc by commanding
> control over a rival Usenet group?
It's dead, Jim.
Ian Jackson
jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>(Sorry - do you want me to email my questions to you - as you seem
>intent on not responding to the serious points I raise here.
I'm generally not responding to your `important points' because no-one
is interested in what you have to say, because it's generally endless
repetition of lies, disinformation and personal attacks.
> If so, please can you supply a valid email address as I believe the
>current one just throws some messages away with no record of them;
>far from satisfactory)
Lies, for example, such as the lie that my email system is throwing
anything away, and the lie that there are no records. _Your ISP_ is
throwing emails away, and my system keeps detailed records of attempts
to deliver incoming email. If the fact that your email vanishes
upsets you, talk to Bill Gates or get a better ISP.
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <08ib559ja9bb7kubr...@4ax.com>,
>jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>(Sorry - do you want me to email my questions to you - as you seem
>>intent on not responding to the serious points I raise here.
>
>I'm generally not responding to your `important points' because no-one
>is interested in what you have to say, because it's generally endless
>repetition of lies, disinformation and personal attacks.
So - *you* have decided that I have never have anything interesting
to say - because you know that *no-one* is interested.
Fascinating.
So when I said in a previous post: "Why not make
urcm-mo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk not subjected to spam filtering
at all?"
You thought - no-one is interested in what Judith has to say - so I
can ignore it and call her a troll.
(Just like urc eh?)
Still - we'll not have embarrassing questions or suggestion in the
censored group will we?
I think your attitude her demonstrates admirably that there will be no
such thing.
Do you propose to implement anything in the moderated system to cater
for your personal view that *no-one* is interested in my view, ever?
Are you really fit to be a moderator?
>> If so, please can you supply a valid email address as I believe the
>>current one just throws some messages away with no record of them;
>>far from satisfactory)
>
>Lies, for example, such as the lie that my email system is throwing
>anything away, and the lie that there are no records. _Your ISP_ is
>throwing emails away, and my system keeps detailed records of attempts
>to deliver incoming email. If the fact that your email vanishes
>upsets you, talk to Bill Gates or get a better ISP.
Excellent - more clarity.
So people cannot email you from certain email addresses because *your*
system is incompatible with Microsoft. And you have asked Microsoft
to change their system - but they won't?
I am surprised, I would have thought they would have realised how
important chiark was in the overall scheme of things.
If your system did not throw away my email - (however you have said
above - it vanished - so did it or didn't it?) - why have you never
contacted to me to tell me that it had bounced?
I would have thought that that is the sort of thing that a reputable
postmaster would have done.
Your whole attitude to the use of email addresses and systems is yet
another example of your unfairness and lack of balance in the real
world and hence unsuitability to be a moderator.
Another good reason for voting NO for the formation of the censored
group.
I wonder if the moderation software will work as well as your email
system does?
Will people be able to post from a Microsoft account?
Will Microsoft have to change any of their systems to make it work?
Is it your intention to beta-test it?
I'll volunteer to help you out - just drop me an email.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 09 Jul 2009 11:12:54 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23...@4ax.com>,
>>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>He has hand picked his co-moderators and will be able to dismiss and
>>>replace them at will.
>>
>>Nonsense. If I were to attempt to do such a thing, the moderators
>>could write to Control to reassert their authority (by having the
>>moderation address pointed at their new, presumably emergency, hosting
>>arrangements).
>
>Have you actually checked that this is the case?
It's fundamental to the way that moderation works in uk.*.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
I am reminded of the dead parrot sketch - though in this case there is
life in the group.
RudiL
wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:07:38 +0100, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 23:01:59 +0100, chris French
>
> >> >In message <2i3a551nb9n9c5o23vep3uh22g349a4...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>
> >> >>The new group will not be shaped by those who use it.
>
> >> >What you mean like urc has been shaped by the people who use it?
>
> >> That is what Usenet is. If people don't like it they are free to set
> >> up an email list or web forum.
>
> >They are also free to set up a moderated newsgroup.
>
> >> But why destroy or attempt to destroy a group like urc by commanding
> >> control over a rival Usenet group?
>
> >It's dead, Jim.
>
> I am reminded of the dead parrot sketch - though in this case there is
> life in the group.
For the moment ...
Rudi
Marc
> On 09 Jul 2009 12:38:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <08ib559ja9bb7kubr...@4ax.com>,
>> jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> (Sorry - do you want me to email my questions to you - as you seem
>>> intent on not responding to the serious points I raise here.
>> I'm generally not responding to your `important points' because no-one
>> is interested in what you have to say, because it's generally endless
>> repetition of lies, disinformation and personal attacks.
>
> So - *you* have decided that I have never have anything interesting
> to say - because you know that *no-one* is interested.
>
> Fascinating.
Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
anything useful so say!
How long do you think we should wait?
*By anyone I mean somone who can be recogised as not a sock puppet of a
troll.
jms
You are quite right.
No-one would be interested in knowing that mail from a Microsoft
account to the moderators went in the bin - sorry I pointed it out.
--
Vote NO to the proposed censored group uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Nuxx Bar
> jms wrote:
> > On 09 Jul 2009 12:38:42 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>
> >> In article <08ib559ja9bb7kubrunhobd7c2to0ud...@4ax.com>,
> >> jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> (Sorry - do you want me to email my questions to you - as you seem
> >>> intent on not responding to the serious points I raise here.
> >> I'm generally not responding to your `important points' because no-one
> >> is interested in what you have to say, because it's generally endless
> >> repetition of lies, disinformation and personal attacks.
>
> > So - *you* have decided that I have never have anything interesting
> > to say - because you know that *no-one* is interested.
>
> > Fascinating.
>
> Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
> anything useful so say!
Assuming that by "the judith thing" you mean Judith, I think she has
plenty of useful things to say; she tells it like it is more than
virtually anyone else in the godforsaken pit that is You Arsey.
> *By anyone I mean somone who can be recogised as not a sock puppet of a
> troll.
Ah. The usual caveat so beloved of the You Arsey regulars. "Does
anyone disagree with me on this subject? (By 'anyone', I mean anyone
who's not a troll. By 'troll', I mean anyone who disagrees with
me.)" In other words, the question is "Does anyone who doesn't
disagree with me disagree with me on this subject?"
As ever, it's a case of trying to force matters by cheating, because
the unaltered truth isn't what you want it to be. So predictable. So
pathetic. So You Arsey.
jms
wrote:
>On 2009-07-10, Dave J wrote:
>
>> As a side point, moderated groups in general, does it not seem reasonable
>> to require a valid reply-to address in all messages? Reply-to isn't
>> spammed particularly often (the one I'm using hasn't received anything
>> yet) but where moderator decisions are concerned it would surely avoid
>> much misunderstanding for there to be a direct line of response.
>
>AIUI, the only way to check that an e-mail address is valid is to send
>mail to it and see what happens. You can reject syntactically invalid
>addresses and check for the usual munging techniques, but bouncing
>addresses can still pass those tests.
>
>The best solution is just to say that anyone who posts without a valid
>From or Reply-To address has no right to complain about not getting
>feedback about rejected posts.
Would hotmail or live email addresses be "valid" for this purpose?
--
Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <h376k6$59j$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>Dave J. <blahd...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>As a side point, moderated groups in general, does it not seem reasonable
>>to require a valid reply-to address in all messages? Reply-to isn't
>>spammed particularly often (the one I'm using hasn't received anything
>>yet) but where moderator decisions are concerned it would surely avoid
>>much misunderstanding for there to be a direct line of response.
>
>I don't see that there is any need for the moderators to insist on a
>valid email address in a posting. Obviously if the poster wants to
>get notified of rejections, they have to provide a valid email
>address, but if they don't then I think it's fair enough to leave that
>decision up to them.
Will your system post emails to Microsoft accounts - given that it
refuses to receive them?
Have you said that the details of rejected posts and moderation delays
will be available via the web as per uk.legal.moderated?
(Feel free to ignore this request if you decide that it is only me,
and no-one else, who would be interested in the answer)
The Happy Hippy
"Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote ...
> Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
> anything useful so say!
>
> How long do you think we should wait?
I think she does have useful things to say, it's just a shame that she
instead chooses to be an incessant drone, antagonistic, petty and repetative
rather than engage in fruitful discussion and debate. She's her own worse
enemy and it's not surprising so many have kill-filed her.
This is why there's perhaps so much debate on the purpose and intent of
u.r.c.m; on one hand it needs to cut the drivel, but OTOH it should (IMO)
allow the useful points ( no matter how rare ) through.
Marc
> "Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote ...
>
>> Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
>> anything useful so say!
>>
>> How long do you think we should wait?
>
> I think she does have useful things to say, it's just a shame that she
> instead chooses to be an incessant drone, antagonistic, petty and repetative
> rather than engage in fruitful discussion and debate.
The key being repetitive.It had something useful to say, said it,and
then repeated it, again and again and again... because it wasn't agreed
with. But my question was "has" not "had".
Just zis Guy, you know?
<the.happy.hippy.n...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I think she does have useful things to say, it's just a shame that she
> instead chooses to be an incessant drone, antagonistic, petty and repetative
> rather than engage in fruitful discussion and debate. She's her own worse
> enemy and it's not surprising so many have kill-filed her.
> This is why there's perhaps so much debate on the purpose and intent of
> u.r.c.m; on one hand it needs to cut the drivel, but OTOH it should (IMO)
> allow the useful points ( no matter how rare ) through.
Sure, and this is why everybody gets a clean slate in the moderated
group. But I have to say that the attempts to rules-lawyer a
deliberately provocative signature in advance of the group's creation
do not bode well.
Having been told that agenda-driven signatures are unwelcome and part
of the behavioural problem people want to get away from, a good faith
contributor will not then spend weeks arguing about how to craft an
agenda-driven signature that will be sufficiently debatable as to
allow them to complain if it fails moderation. To use this argument
as a way of asserting that the group exists to exclude you is
mendacious; the group exists to exclude trolling, you can contribute
to the group by the simple expedient of not trolling. You've
identified the things judith does that drive people away, to which I
would add the constant morphing to avoid killfiles; she could always,
as you suggest, just stop doing those things.
--
Guy
Nick
> troll.
I actually think a lot of Judith's points have been sensible. I haven't
posted supporting her on some her points because of her trolling and the
disruptive effect she has on the group. A good troll will pick sensible
points in order to foment trouble.
It is unfortunate that a number of posters feel the need to constantly
and repetitively refute any "disinformation". Most of us know the
arguments and constantly reading some semi-autistic individuals argue
over them isn't fun.
This group has more than its fair share of "religious" type individuals
who seem to have a great deal of difficulty seeing two sides of an
argument, including proposed moderators.
My guess is that without near universal white listing the group will
fail due to potential posters being put off by the time lag between
posting and successful moderation. My guess is also because of the
nature of the moderators the required level of white listing will not
occur or even if it is white listing is widespread interesting
individuals will lose out.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
I would much prefer to read her than Nuxx, MattB, JNugent
Wm...
<Ul%5m.54707$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com> uk.net.news.config The
Happy Hippy <the.happy....@ntlworld.com>
>
>"Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote ...
>
>> Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
>> anything useful so say!
>>
>> How long do you think we should wait?
>
>I think she does have useful things to say,
Why "she" ? unnc has strong woman who follow the group. There has not,
as far as I am aware, ever been any indication that Judith is female.
kat and Molly *are* female and damn proud of their sex and position and
the respect they get as far as I can tell.
>it's just a shame that she
>instead chooses to be an incessant drone, antagonistic, petty and repetative
>rather than engage in fruitful discussion and debate. She's her own worse
>enemy and it's not surprising so many have kill-filed her.
I think "it" is the best description.
>This is why there's perhaps so much debate on the purpose and intent of
>u.r.c.m; on one hand it needs to cut the drivel, but OTOH it should (IMO)
>allow the useful points ( no matter how rare ) through.
I think if the Judith had a point to make it would have made it by now,
since it feels it hasn't made its point I think it is fair to kill it.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Molly Mockford
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
<BBOGJhKbIJWKFwyn@[127.0.0.1]>:
>kat and Molly *are* female and damn proud of their sex and position and
>the respect they get as far as I can tell.
I hope I would never be so arrogant!
--
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee. If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk>
>At 14:22:35 on Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
><BBOGJhKbIJWKFwyn@[127.0.0.1]>:
>
>>kat and Molly *are* female and damn proud of their sex and position
>>and the respect they get as far as I can tell.
>
>I hope I would never be so arrogant!
You aren't pretending to be a woman so you don't count :)
Chris Malcolm
> "Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote ...
There comes a point in the degenerative development of antisocial
pathologies where it wastes far too much of everyone's time and the
general social good one is trying to preserve to keep taking the
restraints off a lunatic just in the improbable case that they really
have decided to stop misbehaving. URCM shouldn't be viewed as a well
staffed therapeutic clinic for the rehabilitation of seriously
persistent and determined offenders.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> On 10 Jul 2009 12:22:50 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>In article <h376k6$59j$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>>Dave J. <blahd...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>As a side point, moderated groups in general, does it not seem reasonable
>>>to require a valid reply-to address in all messages? Reply-to isn't
>>>spammed particularly often (the one I'm using hasn't received anything
>>>yet) but where moderator decisions are concerned it would surely avoid
>>>much misunderstanding for there to be a direct line of response.
>>
>>I don't see that there is any need for the moderators to insist on a
>>valid email address in a posting. Obviously if the poster wants to
>>get notified of rejections, they have to provide a valid email
>>address, but if they don't then I think it's fair enough to leave that
>>decision up to them.
> Will your system post emails to Microsoft accounts - given that it
> refuses to receive them?
The problem isn't a Micros**t account, it's using the non-standard
Micros**t "enhancements" which were introduced as a cynical marketing
exercise by Micros**t in an attempt to take control of newsgroup and
email software and to introduce secret trapdoors they could exploit
for marketing purposes. And which were seized upon and exploited by
spammers and criminals. This was explained to you, and has often been
explained to you in the past, and you're smart enough to
understand. But you prefer to argue about any and every rule and
standard of good behaviour because you've found bad behaviour gets you
so much more attention.
Until of course you go too far.
Your move.
--
Chris Malcolm
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>The problem isn't a Micros**t account, it's using the non-standard
>Micros**t "enhancements" which were introduced as a cynical marketing
>exercise by Micros**t in an attempt to take control of newsgroup and
>email software and to introduce secret trapdoors they could exploit
>for marketing purposes. And which were seized upon and exploited by
>spammers and criminals. This was explained to you, and has often been
>explained to you in the past, and you're smart enough to
>understand. But you prefer to argue about any and every rule and
>standard of good behaviour because you've found bad behaviour gets you
>so much more attention.
>
>Until of course you go too far.
>
>Your move.
do you think it will provide a valid address come vote time?
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
> do you think it will provide a valid address come vote time?
Yes. The question is only how many.
--
Guy
Wm...
<e77523f5-a872-447e...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
But that means it would have to identify itself. Do you think it wants
that to happen?
Rob Morley
Surely it's already disqualified itself by soliciting 'no' votes?
Dave J.
on Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:28:00 -0700 (PDT), in uk.net.news.config, 'Just zis
Guy, you know?' wrote:
>Having been told that agenda-driven signatures are unwelcome and part
>of the behavioural problem people want to get away from, a good faith
>contributor will not then spend weeks arguing about how to craft an
>agenda-driven signature that will be sufficiently debatable as to
>allow them to complain if it fails moderation.
Surely though, the easiest way around it is to stick to normal convention
over signatures, the usual requirements about legal liabilities and any
offensive nature are enforced rigidly. The inclusion of one of the dubious
sigs counts slightly against the permissibility of what would be seen as
harmless 'chit-chat' (ie possibly theoretically excludable but often
outweighed by past *good* contributions) from any other contributor.
If 'her' petty point scoring nature acts as incitement to make 'her'
generate *interesting* stuff just as a way to score 'signature points'
then *who cares* ! The interesting stuff is still there, and the
signature is ignored by anyone with half a clue.
Eventually it will sink in to even the most obsessive mentality that the
signature is neither here nor there and that what's important is the
posting itself.
At the end of the day, to fall into the trap of fussing about what is or
is nor allowed in a sig is missing the whole point IMHO. A slightly
irritating sig (I can't say repetetive, ALL sigs are repetetive) counts
marginally against the interest value of the rest of the posting.
Therefore the posts that make it through with the annoying sigs have to be
slightly *more* interesting than those without. This adds to the value of
the group and is a net benefit.
The bonus is that it will teach the loon just how irrelevant the bollox
about helmets etc actually is, and that s/h/it actually gets noticed only
for actual content.
Dave J.
Dave J.
+0000 (UTC), in uk.net.news.config, 'Chris Malcolm' wrote:
>The problem isn't a Micros**t account, it's using the non-standard
>Micros**t "enhancements" which were introduced as a cynical marketing
>exercise by Micros**t in an attempt to take control of newsgroup and
>email software and to introduce secret trapdoors they could exploit
>for marketing purposes.
Would you care to point me at a reference to tell me the details of this?
I thought I knew most of the annoying hyper-imaginative $soft quirks, but
I don't recognise this one.
Dave J.
Nuxx Bar
No-one has solicited "No" votes. Some people have notified those in
other newsgroups, but just because most people in those newsgroups are
likely to vote "No" (as you'd expect since the proposal is for a
censored group run by lunatic car-haters, and the newsgroups concerned
are mostly occupied by those who oppose car-haters), that does not
constitute soliciting "No" votes.
And this "it" nonsense is incredibly immature. Would you call someone
"it" to their face? If not, you shouldn't be doing it on usenet
either.
Marc
> On Jul 12, 1:25 pm, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 10:02 am, "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> do you think it will provide a valid address come vote time?
>>> Yes. The question is only how many.
>> Surely it's already disqualified itself by soliciting 'no' votes?
>
> No-one has solicited "No" votes. Some people have notified those in
> other newsgroups, but just because most people in those newsgroups are
> likely to vote "No" (as you'd expect since the proposal is for a
> censored group run by lunatic car-haters, and the newsgroups concerned
> are mostly occupied by those who oppose car-haters), that does not
> constitute soliciting "No" votes.
"Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka
uk.rec.cycling.censored" Sound familiar?
>
> And this "it" nonsense is incredibly immature. Would you call someone
> "it" to their face?
No, the grammar wouldn't be right. If you are asking would I describe
someone in RL to somone else as "it" then yes I would.
If not, you shouldn't be doing it on usenet
> either.
OK I'll take that as approval of me doing it on Usenet.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>Surely though, the easiest way around it is to stick to normal convention
>over signatures, the usual requirements about legal liabilities and any
>offensive nature are enforced rigidly. The inclusion of one of the dubious
>sigs counts slightly against the permissibility of what would be seen as
>harmless 'chit-chat' (ie possibly theoretically excludable but often
>outweighed by past *good* contributions) from any other contributor.
Sure. And that seems to me to be more or less what is being proposed.
I don't think it is necessary to have a canonical reference to all
aspects of dickishness for a policy of "don't be a dick" to be more or
less workable.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>> do you think it will provide a valid address come vote time?
>>Yes. The question is only how many.
>But that means it would have to identify itself. Do you think it wants
>that to happen?
Email addresses are free.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:10:54 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> do you think it will provide a valid address come vote time?
>>>Yes. The question is only how many.
>>But that means it would have to identify itself. Do you think it wants
>>that to happen?
>
>Email addresses are free.
>
>Guy
Forgery.
--
Guy
The Happy Hippy
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote ...
If moderators are doing their job and the moderation policy is sound,
u.r.c.m won't be in anyway disturbed other than by 'a lunatic having an
entirely rational day' and if they have a post which would pass moderation
there is no reason not to pass it.
I'd hate to think a hospital would turn someone away needing urgent medical
attention just because they have a reputation and history of being a manic
hypochondriac. Of course, "no one dies on usenet", but it's the principle.
kat
Wm... said:
> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:13:40
> <Ul%5m.54707$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com> uk.net.news.config
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy....@ntlworld.com>
>
>>
>> "Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote ...
>>
>>> Let's check! Speak up anyone* who thinks that the judith thing has
>>> anything useful so say!
>>>
>>> How long do you think we should wait?
>>
>> I think she does have useful things to say,
>
> Why "she" ? unnc has strong woman who follow the group. There has
> not, as far as I am aware, ever been any indication that Judith is female.
>
> kat and Molly *are* female and damn proud of their sex and position
> and the respect they get as far as I can tell.
The replies I can think of, to that, might lose me some of the respect. ;-)
--
kat
>^..^<
Dave J.
On that note, it has to finish.
I've made my points as well as I can amd I think the voters can draw their
own conclusions from the answers (often not) given by the probable
moderators to the questions about permissibility of legitimate posts with
legitmate signatures that they happen to object to. I think it underlines
a childish mentality that may not bode well for the viability of the
group.
On the other hand, if the group is formed anyhow, the dreaded 'J' may make
an interesting post right at the beginning, complete with one of 'her'
childish point-scoring sigs, and the mods may rise above it all by letting
it through. Who knows. All I can say is that the responses so far don't
look especially positive from that angle.
Dave J.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
> You've
>identified the things judith does that drive people away, to which I
>would add the constant morphing to avoid killfiles; she could always,
>as you suggest, just stop doing those things.
Sorry to be repetitive : but why did you morph just to post as Lou
Knee?
Wouldn't God let you call someone a shit if you posted as "Guy"?
I think we should be told.
--
jms
Are you saying that my email address is not valid for a vote?
I do not believe you.
jms
Ho, ho, ho said Lou Knee.
Do you want Lou's vote - or can I have it.
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
jms
wrote:
Oh really.
Where is it stated that one must not do that?