2nd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

[sun flower]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Changes from previous RFD:

Clarification added that whilst the moderators may use whatever tools and
processes they wish in order to moderate the group, the specific
requirements of the charter take precedence and must be followed.

Reference to any other named group has been removed: the moderators are now
required to name a newsgroup <the appropriate newsgroup> where queries and
discussion of moderation policy and decisions will take place.

Changes in the rationale, as described in the RATIONAL section.


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Please note: this Rationale has been changed from the previous version as a
result of the discussion of it and the proposed charter changes. It was
claimed that there were inaccuracies in the original Rationale; these
disputed claims have been removed. Clarification that any expected
work-load on the moderators will be minimal has been made. Minor
grammatical changes have also been made.

Over the period since uk.rec.cycling.moderated (URCM) was formed in 2009
there have been a number of occasions where people have expressed disquiet
over the way the moderation process has been carried out.

It is appreciated that not all of the people can be pleased all of the
time; however, it is the proposer's view that whilst comments and
suggestions have already been made to the moderators over their processes,
there has been a reluctance to take on board that which has been
suggested - even when there has been a consensus in discussion that change
was required. This RFD contains a proposal to a change of the charter of
URCM so that specific reservations may be addressed by incorporating clear
requirements of what is expected of the moderators. In reality, it is not
expected that the proposed changes in the moderation policies will lead to
any significant extra work for the moderation panel; it is however expected
that the proposed changes will remove the grounds for repeated complaints,
once and for all. Moderators will still have the freedom to use whatever
tools and processes they wish to apply to the moderation process; but there
will be some specific requirements which are paramount. The areas of
concern which have been raised previously which are to be addressed by this
RFD are as follows:

1)
Individual posters have been singled out for 'special attention'.

2)
Individual posters have been allocated to a single moderator for
processing of their posts, with a subsequent time delay ensuing in the
processing of their posts.

3)
A number of posters have been banned from the group with no clear
explanation of the procedure that has been followed in the banning
decision.

4)
A number of posters have been banned from the group indefinitely.

5)
Posts appear to have been rejected either based on the style of the
poster or on an apparent assumption of the poster's identity rather than on
the content of the post.

6)
Specific requests for information and clarification of rejected posts
have been made by email to the moderators: these requests have been totally
ignored.

7)
Subsequent to (6) above, specific requests have been made in
uk.net.news.moderation for information and clarification of their actions
from the moderators; these requests have been totally ignored.

8)
The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or
from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
domain of the poster's email address (which is usually the norm with email
systems). This means that some posters are not informed that their post
has been received, accepted or rejected. Similarly some emails to the
official moderators' email address have not been accepted by the moderation
system.



PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated

It is proposed that the Charter of the group uk.rec.cycling.moderated is
changed in the following fashion:

1)
Replace the sentence: "The moderators may use whatever tools and processes
they collectively feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the
group."

with the following sentence:

"The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively feel
appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group; as long as the other
specific requirements of this charter are treated as paramount."

2)
Replace the sentence: "Decisions by individual moderators to approve or
reject a posting, or to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to
the whole moderation panel."

with the following sentence:

"Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or to
close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole moderation
panel, or by a posting in the appropriate newsgroup. In this case any
ensuing discussion will take place in public in the appropriate newsgroup."

3)
Add the following text to the charter, in a new section entitled Moderation
Policy.

The moderators have a responsibility to ensure that all moderation actions
and decisions are carried out fairly and in a timely manner. In
particular, the following principles will be adhered to:

a)
All posters are treated equally and fairly.

b)
No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.

c)
Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
identity, or presumed identity of the poster.

d)
The moderators will define a newsgroup in which all issues regarding
moderation may be discussed. (This newsgroup is referred to as <the
appropriate newsgroup> throughout this charter).

e)
In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
respond to the query in a reasonable time.

f)
Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the appropriate
newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to "valid" queries
on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. "Valid" queries will be
those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators will explain
why, if they deem a query to not be "valid".

g)
An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be banned
from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must immediately
inform the offender by email outlining the reason for this action and its
duration; the reason will also be posted in the appropriate newsgroup.

h)
All emails to and from the moderators will be treated in a consistent
fashion which will be totally independent of the email domain which is used
by the poster.


END PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until September 17th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Proponent:
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 1.4.10
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBUEkid2OfGXkh8vHZAQFKBAP+NsVnuFO5XykxTRKmqEW8DMpgZRHjvePe
odx+/ixRe+W6AbivxWhqw03+GvrdfsFPtlkXJdPfL7cP+Y506koNKHB6TtwEtNB5
G6iBk4koYraV2cTDEAkAbRXTA2/zVZlVq6xCT3ekZnL81MQY8NhdjBLdmPSKwVhn
e9x5epnCbYc=
=aUKL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Colin Reed]

Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:23:12 +0100, sun flower
<bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

<snippage>

So: a person who is too craven to admit their real identity demands
that a group of people who have expressed a clear preference for not
interacting with those whose only interest in cycling is to goad and
bait cyclists with the aim of scoring points, be forced to interact
with said group.

I think the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram
adequately covers this.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:32:37 +0200
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 07/09/12 01:24, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:23:12 +0100, sun flower
> > <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > So: a person who is too craven to admit their real identity demands
> > that a group of people who have expressed a clear preference for not
> > interacting with those whose only interest in cycling is to goad and
> > bait cyclists with the aim of scoring points, be forced to interact
> > with said group.
> >
> > I think the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram
> > adequately covers this.
>

> C'mon, it's quite funny. Sit back relax, watch the same old doggerel
> and tripe being dished out as last time.
>
>
But someone's wrong on the internet.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-09-06 22:23:12 +0000, sun flower said:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

(rest of RFD snipped for brevity)

>
>
> e)
> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
> respond to the query in a reasonable time.

Can we safely assume that the duty to "respond" under clause e) does
not constitute a commitment to an endless and/or repetetive discussion
of the adequacy of said response?


--

Percy Picacity

[kat]

I doubt it. The clause doesn't appear to address the need for an adequate
response, just a response. Guy's suggestion is a response, and on occasion
it could be more than adequate, but generally it would deserve some further
discussion I would have thought.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:37:41 +0100, Colin Reed <co...@not-here.nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
>>
>> c)
>> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
>> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.

[snip]

>> g)
>> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
>> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.

> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.

I mentioned that on the first RFD and was ignored.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Andy Leighton]

Or indeed how should someone someone who asks for a response for every
rejection be handled.

Especially as the temptation would be an automatic response "We feel the
article was not in accordance with the charter." - which should be
obvious because otherwise it wouldn't have been rejected.

[Brighton]

On 06/09/2012 23:37, Colin Reed wrote:
> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:

<snip>

> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.

Yes well spotted.

I propose 3) is changed to say:

Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless the
poster is banned), nor on the assumed identity of the poster, but purely

on the content of the post.

Unless anyone has another suggestion.

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 08:49, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:37:41 +0100, Colin Reed <co...@not-here.nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
>>>
>>> c)
>>> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
>>> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> g)
>>> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
>>> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
>
>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>
> I mentioned that on the first RFD and was ignored.
>

I am sorry - I had not read you post as saying that; I did not
deliberately ignore it.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

It would need to be:

Posts will not be rejected on the identity or assumed identity of the
poster (unless the poster is banned), but purely on the content of
the post.

Otherwise all a banned user needs to do is use sockpuppets to be
guaranteed access, which is of course exactly the kind of thing the OP
is trying to weasel in.

[Brighton]

The problem that I am trying to address, is that where emails to
moderators and posts to unnm with genuine queries are just totally
ignored by the moderators. Obviously you cannot dictate what their
reply is: but some sensible reply would at least be courteous. Surely
they do not need every little aspect of what is expected of them
spelling out.
My idea is that this RFD will at least give them a very good idea of
what people want from them - more so than they seem to have now.
If the moderators do not abide with the spirit as well as the letter of
the proposed charter, then a no confidence vote will follow.
I agree: it should not be necessary to say that the moderators must be
reasonable.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-09-07, Andy Leighton wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:37:41 +0100, Colin Reed <co...@not-here.nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
>>>
>>> c)
>>> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
>>> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> g)
>>> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
>>> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
>
>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>
> I mentioned that on the first RFD and was ignored.

Item c could just end with "except as provided in g below"; then it
would be consistent.

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 08:54, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:14:40 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2012-09-06 22:23:12 +0000, sun flower said:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> (rest of RFD snipped for brevity)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> e)
>>> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
>>> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
>>> respond to the query in a reasonable time.
>>
>> Can we safely assume that the duty to "respond" under clause e) does
>> not constitute a commitment to an endless and/or repetetive discussion
>> of the adequacy of said response?
>
> Or indeed how should someone someone who asks for a response for every
> rejection be handled.

I should not have to explain this for you. Answer reasonable requests
for clarification in a reasonable fashion. If you believe that a
request is genuinely unreasonable, then just say so. I am trying to
give reasonable guidance of what is expected: if a moderator wants to be
bloody minded than they can always work round a charter.

> Especially as the temptation would be an automatic response "We feel the
> article was not in accordance with the charter." - which should be
> obvious because otherwise it wouldn't have been rejected.
>

I fully understand what the temptation will be for some moderators. I
am trying to give them clarification of what is expected of them, more
than they seem to have at the moment.

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 10:51, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 10:46:15 +0100, Brighton
> <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/2012 23:37, Colin Reed wrote:
>>> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>>
>>
>> Yes well spotted.
>>
>> I propose 3) is changed to say:
>>
>> Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless the
>> poster is banned), nor on the assumed identity of the poster, but purely
>> on the content of the post.
>>
>> Unless anyone has another suggestion.
>
> It would need to be:
>
> Posts will not be rejected on the identity or assumed identity of the
> poster (unless the poster is banned), but purely on the content of
> the post.
>
> Otherwise all a banned user needs to do is use sockpuppets to be
> guaranteed access

Indeed, I understand that happens now, which shows the stupidity of
banning posts on who has made them, rather than on what they say which
is the point I am trying to resolve.

[Andy Leighton]

Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
From: Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
References: <rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk> <5u8se8....@news.alt.net> <slrnk4ja1o...@azaal.plus.com> <k2ch1v$5he$1...@news.datemas.de>
Reply-To: an...@azaal.plus.com
Followup-To:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:07:59 +0100, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 08:54, Andy Leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:14:40 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-06 22:23:12 +0000, sun flower said:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>
>>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>
>>> (rest of RFD snipped for brevity)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> e)
>>>> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
>>>> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
>>>> respond to the query in a reasonable time.
>>>
>>> Can we safely assume that the duty to "respond" under clause e) does
>>> not constitute a commitment to an endless and/or repetetive discussion
>>> of the adequacy of said response?
>>
>> Or indeed how should someone someone who asks for a response for every
>> rejection be handled.
>
> I should not have to explain this for you. Answer reasonable requests
> for clarification in a reasonable fashion. If you believe that a
> request is genuinely unreasonable, then just say so. I am trying to
> give reasonable guidance of what is expected: if a moderator wants to be
> bloody minded than they can always work round a charter.

No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
(sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
similar behaviour.

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:49:13 <slrnk4j9np...@azaal.plus.com>
uk.net.news.config Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>

>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:37:41 +0100, Colin Reed
><co...@not-here.nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
>>>
>>> c)
>>> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
>>> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.
>
>[snip]
>
>>> g)
>>> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
>>> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
>
>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>
>I mentioned that on the first RFD and was ignored.

Perhaps our proponent thinks that by riding their bike into the shed
door repeatedly the door may magically open.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

[Wm...]

Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:23:12
<rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk
> uk.net.news.announce sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>

> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

objection; I don't know who sun flower is but they aren't making sense.

the mix and match of how they think moderated groups should work should
be enough for most people to say, "no thanks" to this RFD.

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:23:12 +0100, sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

A number of my points on the first RFD remain unaddressed and/or
unclarified.

> 8)
> The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or
> from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
> domain of the poster's email address

This is clearly untrue. The moderation system deals with all emails in
exactly the same way. That way may not be to everyone's liking, but
it is entirely consistent and entirely independent of the domain of
the poster's email address.

> systems). This means that some posters are not informed that their post
> has been received, accepted or rejected. Similarly some emails to the
> official moderators' email address have not been accepted by the moderation
> system.

> a)
> All posters are treated equally and fairly.

This is a not a good rule. It forbids use of whitelisting for example.

> b)
> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.

No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.

> c)
> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.

The conflict with g) is discussed elsewhere.

> d)
> The moderators will define a newsgroup in which all issues regarding
> moderation may be discussed. (This newsgroup is referred to as <the
> appropriate newsgroup> throughout this charter).

What is a newsgroup? Seriously. Your statement does not state (or
imply) that the newsgroup is in the UK hierarchy, or is propogated.
For example a newsgroup on a local instance of INN on the moderation
server would count.

> e)
> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
> respond to the query in a reasonable time.

To be nitpicky - "reasonable time" is meaningless. If the aim is to
give direction then you need to elaborate on that a bit more even if it
doesn't get in the charter.

> f)
> Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the appropriate
> newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to "valid" queries
> on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. "Valid" queries will be
> those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators will explain
> why, if they deem a query to not be "valid".

I really don't understand the valid/invalid distinction here. Again I
want more elaboration. I am sure that there are unanswerable queries.
Also as it doesn't state who can query moderation policy, it is just a
rod for the moderators' backs. It also means that the moderators cannot
use a killfile in 'the appropriate newsgroup'.

> g)
> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
> These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be banned
> from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must immediately
> inform the offender by email

It may not be able to possible to inform the offender by email.
Obviously everyone should use addresses that do exist and do accept
email, there may well be some (especially if they are considering
seriously violating the group's charter) who use false email addresses
which cannot be contacted.

> duration; the reason will also be posted in the appropriate newsgroup.

We do not highlight such bans at the moment. If a poster wishes to
announce that they have been sanctioned that is their right, but I
wouldn't want to 'out them'.

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:18:02 <k2chkq$6ck$1...@news.datemas.de>
uk.net.news.config Brighton <bright...@outlook.com>

>Indeed, I understand that happens now, which shows the stupidity of
>banning posts on who has made them, rather than on what they say which
>is the point I am trying to resolve.

tell us more about resolution. why shouldn't you just walk away and
leave the users of a moderated group alone?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:42:30 <20120907074230.3ee0f57a@hyperion>
uk.net.news.config Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>

>But someone's wrong on the internet.

Yes. Is it that time again?

I think the Paralympics are going rather well.

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:14:40 <5u8se8....@news.alt.net>
uk.net.news.config Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>

I think endless back and forth is presumed

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when an...@azaal.plus.com (Andy
Leighton) came up to me and whispered:

> The moderation system deals with all emails in
> exactly the same way. That way may not be to everyone's
> liking, but it is entirely consistent and entirely independent
> of the domain of the poster's email address.

That's not the case, as I have recently evidenced.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:33:45 <aatmav...@mid.individual.net>
uk.net.news.config kat <little...@hotmail.com>

where do you think that discussion should take place, k?

uk.rec.cycling is already there

the uk.net.* groups are in place

what, in all honesty, do people want that they can't have?

i'll tell you for free, access to a group that they have no right to
invade with their opinions.

k, i'm getting a bit angry about this, who's side are you on?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

My comments since last time remain unaddressed.

This RFD's new charter clauses fall into two categories:

* Things the moderators feel they are doing already. For example, we
already reply to what we think are "valid" questions in unnm.
Obviously the proponent thinks otherwise, but a charter change
isn't going to help the proponent.

* Things which are a bad idea. To take only two examples: the
requirement to treat all email domains identically would result, if
the moderators honoured it, in the removal of the special exception
which allows hotmail users to email the moderators; the requirement
to treat all posters identically would prohibit the passlist.

There is nothing good in this RFD.

--
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

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:56:30 <k2cgce$khh$1...@news.datemas.de>
uk.net.news.config Brighton <bright...@outlook.com>

>The problem that I am trying to address, is that where emails to
>moderators and posts to unnm with genuine queries are just totally
>ignored by the moderators. Obviously you cannot dictate what their
>reply is: but some sensible reply would at least be courteous. Surely
>they do not need every little aspect of what is expected of them
>spelling out.
>My idea is that this RFD will at least give them a very good idea of
>what people want from them - more so than they seem to have now.
>If the moderators do not abide with the spirit as well as the letter of
>the proposed charter, then a no confidence vote will follow.
>I agree: it should not be necessary to say that the moderators must be
>reasonable.

Make your proposal for *all* uk.* moderated groups or leave this
playground.

Think about it

As for the no confidence bit, I think you must go back through a few
decades of uk.*, it isn't going to happen.

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:54:32 <slrnk4ja1o...@azaal.plus.com>
uk.net.news.config Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:14:40 +0100, Percy Picacity
><k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2012-09-06 22:23:12 +0000, sun flower said:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>
>> (rest of RFD snipped for brevity)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> e)
>>> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
>>> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
>>> respond to the query in a reasonable time.
>>
>> Can we safely assume that the duty to "respond" under clause e) does
>> not constitute a commitment to an endless and/or repetetive discussion
>> of the adequacy of said response?
>
>Or indeed how should someone someone who asks for a response for every
>rejection be handled.

and who should the response be sent to?

not all of us (Wm glances above) use reliable addresses (PP not Andy).

>Especially as the temptation would be an automatic response "We feel the
>article was not in accordance with the charter." - which should be
>obvious because otherwise it wouldn't have been rejected.

Bit obvious, innit?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:07:59 <k2ch1v$5he$1...@news.datemas.de>
uk.net.news.config Brighton <bright...@outlook.com>

>I fully understand what the temptation will be for some moderators. I
>am trying to give them clarification of what is expected of them, more
>than they seem to have at the moment.

What would you like discussed that cannot (in your opinion) be
discussed?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:18:00
<memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain> uk.net.news.config
Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid>

>We were about to embark at Dover, when an...@azaal.plus.com (Andy
>Leighton) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> The moderation system deals with all emails in
>> exactly the same way. That way may not be to everyone's
>> liking, but it is entirely consistent and entirely independent
>> of the domain of the poster's email address.
>
>That's not the case, as I have recently evidenced.

What is it you have evidenced, Paul? I may be wrong and reporting
malicious words but it seems you have been in and out of jail and
presume to moralise with people that haven't ever done anything that
bad.

[Matthew Vernon]

sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> writes:

> 8)
> The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or

> from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
> domain of the poster's email address (which is usually the norm with email

> systems). This means that some posters are not informed that their post
> has been received, accepted or rejected. Similarly some emails to the
> official moderators' email address have not been accepted by the moderation
> system.

There seems to be a certain amount of misinformation floating around
regarding the moderation system, email, and emailing the moderators. I
hope the following summary might prove enlightening.

* Posting *

The email address of the moderation machinery is entirely unfiltered -
anyone can submit posts regardless of their From: header.

* Emailing the moderators (not posting)*

The moderators may be contacted by email, via urcm-moderators at
chiark.greenend.org.uk or uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request at
usenet.org.uk (the latter forwards to the former).

The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an exception
has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's postmaster can forward
on messages from people whose email is rejected by SAUCE; the intention
is that their email addresses are then white-listed, so they should then
be able to email the moderators directly.

* Acknowledgements / rejection notices *

If you post from a deliverable From: (which many people chose not to),
you will get an acknowledgement of your post and an acceptance /
rejection notice[0], unless your mail provider blocks chiark[1]. In any
case, the moderation logs are available so anyone can see how the state
of their posts:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm

Errors in the above are my fault, although the moderators did help
clarify a couple of points for me.

Matthew

[0] you can opt-out of the acks, but not the rejection notes
[1] the moderators tell me that outlook/hotmail are the only provider
they are aware of that does so
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:

> I may be wrong and reporting
> malicious words but it seems you have been in and out of jail

You are wrong and are reporting malicious words. We've recently had the
same discussion on uk.legal

Moreovreven if it were true, it would have no relevance in the discussion,
so why do you feel the need to raise it, true or not?

> What is it you have evidenced, Paul?

That Jackson stated he would make arrangements to accept Hotmail email
and postings, and has failed to do so.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)

came up to me and whispered:

>

> The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an
> exception has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's
> postmaster can forward on messages from people whose email is
> rejected by SAUCE; the intention is that their email addresses are
> then white-listed, so they should then be able to email the
> moderators directly.

Not acceptable. The moderators address should accept email from any
legitimate source, including Hotmail.

Until it does, as Jackson promised years ago, then URCM is broken.

[Tony]

On 2012-09-07, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

> * Acknowledgements / rejection notices *
>
> If you post from a deliverable From: (which many people chose not to),

A valid reply-to works as well (i.e. my From: isn't a routable mail
address, but my reply-to: is, and I got notifications).

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Matthew Vernon]

Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:

> On 2012-09-07, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> * Acknowledgements / rejection notices *
>>
>> If you post from a deliverable From: (which many people chose not to),
>
> A valid reply-to works as well (i.e. my From: isn't a routable mail
> address, but my reply-to: is, and I got notifications).

Thank you for the correction.

Matthew

[Matthew Vernon]

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an
>> exception has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's
>> postmaster can forward on messages from people whose email is
>> rejected by SAUCE; the intention is that their email addresses are
>> then white-listed, so they should then be able to email the
>> moderators directly.
>
> Not acceptable. The moderators address should accept email from any
> legitimate source, including Hotmail.

Was it not clear that the exception means that email from hotmail[0]
bypasses SAUCE? hotmail users can email the moderators
directly. Further, when the moderators become aware that someone's
having trouble getting in touch, then their address is whitelisted.

Matthew

[0] using as a shorthand for hotmail and outlook

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
came up to me and whispered:

> Was it not clear that the exception means that email from
> hotmail[0] bypasses SAUCE?

That's what is claimed. It's not true though.

220 chiark.greenend.org.uk sauce-smtpd ESMTP ready [Pleased]
helo host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com
250 chiark.greenend.org.uk hello
@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com
(postm...@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com?)
mail from: <tram...@hotmail.com>
250 Warning! Deferral likely: problematic MAIL-FROM: [65.55.92.136.] RSET
(for verify, pipelining) [65.55.92.136.] => 554 Transaction failed
rcpt to: <urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk>
550-HELO name lookup revealed misconfiguration: Error during DNS A lookup
for www.hotmail.com: DNS alias found where canonical name wanted
[Irritated]

Hotmail users cannot email the moderators directly.

If Jackson claims otherwise, he is, again, lying.

Tram...@hotmail.com is a valid email address that I control.

And, while we are at it...

220 chiark.greenend.org.uk sauce-smtpd ESMTP ready [Irritated]
helo host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus
250 chiark.greenend.org.uk hello
@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus
.com (postm...@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com?)
mail from: <tram...@hotmail.com>
250 Warning! Deferral likely: problematic MAIL-FROM: [65.55.37.88.] RSET
(for ve
rify, pipelining) [65.55.37.88.] => 554 Transaction failed
rcpt to: <postmaster>
501 Syntax error in parameter to RCPT [Irritated]

Sauce is not RFC compliant. Which, coming from the "author" of dpkg, is a
shock (not)

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:22:00

<memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain> uk.net.news.config
Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid>

>We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
>(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> I may be wrong and reporting
>> malicious words but it seems you have been in and out of jail
>
>You are wrong and are reporting malicious words. We've recently had the
>same discussion on uk.legal

I don't follow that group. Have you been in and out of jail or not?

>Moreovreven if it were true, it would have no relevance in the discussion,
>so why do you feel the need to raise it, true or not?

I guess it is about morals. If you really haven't been in and out of
jail why don't you just say so and be done with it?

>> What is it you have evidenced, Paul?
>
>That Jackson stated he would make arrangements to accept Hotmail email
>and postings, and has failed to do so.

You aren't historically the best person for e-mail are you?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:22:00
<memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain> uk.net.news.config
Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid>

>We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
>came up to me and whispered:
>
>>
>> The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an
>> exception has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's
>> postmaster can forward on messages from people whose email is
>> rejected by SAUCE; the intention is that their email addresses are
>> then white-listed, so they should then be able to email the
>> moderators directly.
>
>Not acceptable. The moderators address should accept email from any
>legitimate source, including Hotmail.
>
>Until it does, as Jackson promised years ago, then URCM is broken.

Ummm, unless I am mistaken you haven't shown a lot of interest in
cycling.

What happened, Paul?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:29:44 <slrnk4jq5...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>
uk.net.news.config Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>

>On 2012-09-07, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> * Acknowledgements / rejection notices *
>>
>> If you post from a deliverable From: (which many people chose not to),
>
>A valid reply-to works as well (i.e. my From: isn't a routable mail
>address, but my reply-to: is, and I got notifications).
>

It might be interesting to point out at this point that not all uk.*
groups do that.

uk.lm ignores my addresses

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:

> If you really haven't been in and out of
> jail why don't you just say so and be done with it?

I have answered this question online many times.

No, I have not been in and out of Jail.

Now, again, can you please explain how that question had any relevance
whatsoever?

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:

> Ummm, unless I am mistaken you haven't shown a lot of interest
> in cycling.
>
> What happened, Paul?

There isn't an appropriate Cycling group in the hierarchy.

[Matthew Vernon]

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
> came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Was it not clear that the exception means that email from
>> hotmail[0] bypasses SAUCE?

<snip>

Two observations:

i) you're not a hotmail server.
ii) that's not an address you've been using to try and contact the
moderators, I presume?

> rcpt to: <postmaster>
> 501 Syntax error in parameter to RCPT [Irritated]

I'm not a mail expert, but I rather thought that the forward-path
argument to RCPT TO had to be localpart@domain?

Matthew

[Andy Burns]

Matthew Vernon wrote:

> uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
>> rcpt to: <postmaster>
>> 501 Syntax error in parameter to RCPT [Irritated]
>
> I'm not a mail expert, but I rather thought that the forward-path
> argument to RCPT TO had to be localpart@domain?

Postmaster is a special ...

'The reserved mailbox name "postmaster" may be used in a RCPT command
without domain qualification (see section 4.1.1.3) and MUST be accepted
if so used.'

[Tony]

On 2012-09-07, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

> uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
>> came up to me and whispered:
>>
>>> Was it not clear that the exception means that email from
>>> hotmail[0] bypasses SAUCE?
>
><snip>
>
> Two observations:
>
> i) you're not a hotmail server.
> ii) that's not an address you've been using to try and contact the
> moderators, I presume?
>
>> rcpt to: <postmaster>
>> 501 Syntax error in parameter to RCPT [Irritated]
>
> I'm not a mail expert, but I rather thought that the forward-path
> argument to RCPT TO had to be localpart@domain?

RFC 5321 has,

rcpt = "RCPT TO:" ( "<Postmaster@" Domain ">" / "<Postmaster>" /
Forward-path ) [SP Rcpt-parameters] CRLF

Note that, in a departure from the usual rules for
local-parts, the "Postmaster" string shown above is
treated as case-insensitive.

and Exim certainly appears to be happy with just <postmaster> as the
argument.

[Sara]

In article <memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain>,

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
> (Wm...) came up to me and whispered:
>
> > I may be wrong and reporting
> > malicious words but it seems you have been in and out of jail
>
> You are wrong and are reporting malicious words. We've recently had the
> same discussion on uk.legal
>
> Moreovreven if it were true, it would have no relevance in the discussion,
> so why do you feel the need to raise it, true or not?
>
> > What is it you have evidenced, Paul?
>
> That Jackson stated he would make arrangements to accept Hotmail email
> and postings, and has failed to do so.

He has. What he hasn't done is change his server to behave in such a way
that MS will accept emails *from* chiark.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Ian Jackson]

In article <KYydnbuFwei4ZdTN...@brightview.co.uk>,
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

>Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>I'm not a mail expert, but I rather thought that the forward-path
>>argument to RCPT TO had to be localpart@domain?
>
>Postmaster is a special ...
>
>'The reserved mailbox name "postmaster" may be used in a RCPT command
>without domain qualification (see section 4.1.1.3) and MUST be accepted
>if so used.'

I think this is a bug in SAUCE. So sorry about that.

It only affects messages sent by handwritten SMTP (as it's not
generally possible to persuade an actual MTA to try to email just
<postmaster> at a remote MTA). I will see about fixing it in my CFT
but TBH it's not very high up on my priority list.

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
> Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
> From: Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>
> Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> References: <rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk> <5u8se8....@news.alt.net> <slrnk4ja1o...@azaal.plus.com> <k2ch1v$5he$1...@news.datemas.de>
> Reply-To: an...@azaal.plus.com
> Followup-To:
>
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:07:59 +0100, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

>> On 07/09/2012 08:54, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:14:40 +0100, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-09-06 22:23:12 +0000, sun flower said:
>>>>
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>
>>>>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>>
>>>> (rest of RFD snipped for brevity)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> e)
>>>>> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
>>>>> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
>>>>> respond to the query in a reasonable time.
>>>>
>>>> Can we safely assume that the duty to "respond" under clause e) does
>>>> not constitute a commitment to an endless and/or repetetive discussion
>>>> of the adequacy of said response?
>>>
>>> Or indeed how should someone someone who asks for a response for every
>>> rejection be handled.
>>

>> I should not have to explain this for you. Answer reasonable requests
>> for clarification in a reasonable fashion. If you believe that a
>> request is genuinely unreasonable, then just say so. I am trying to
>> give reasonable guidance of what is expected: if a moderator wants to be
>> bloody minded than they can always work round a charter.
>
> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
> similar behaviour.

There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.

[Tony]

I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
the size of the issue.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <slrnk4j9np...@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:37:41 +0100, Colin Reed <co...@not-here.nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>
>I mentioned that on the first RFD and was ignored.

You weren't the only one. In fact most of the comments on the first RFD
seem to have been ignored. Guess how surprised I am.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <w16QIZKMIdSQFw+8@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... wrote:
>Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:23:12
><rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk
> > uk.net.news.announce sun flower <bright...@outlook.com>

>
>> 2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>

>objection; I don't know who sun flower is but they aren't making sense.
>
>the mix and match of how they think moderated groups should work should
>be enough for most people to say, "no thanks" to this RFD.
>

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain>

uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
> We were about to embark at Dover, when an...@azaal.plus.com (Andy
> Leighton) came up to me and whispered:
>
> > The moderation system deals with all emails in
> > exactly the same way. That way may not be to everyone's
> > liking, but it is entirely consistent and entirely independent
> > of the domain of the poster's email address.
>
> That's not the case, as I have recently evidenced.
>

Paul and Judith reproducing, someone film this please and make sure
the child is removed to a safe place ASAP

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 12:00, Andy Leighton wrote:
)
>> The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or

>> from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the

>> domain of the poster's email address
>

> This is clearly untrue.


I am sorry - but I and others disagree for the reasons discussed ad
nauseum elsewhere in this thread. Only in the last two or three weeks
have there been posts/emails not handled correctly because they were
from outlook.com.


>> a)
>> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>
> This is a not a good rule. It forbids use of whitelisting for example.


I think you will find that the term "equally and fairly" is used
throughout various legislations: I think that most people do not have a
problem in understanding what it means.
It does not forbid whitelisting at all: it means that the process should
be equal and fair. If anyone makes a certain number of posts to the
group which are accepted, then they should become whitelisted: they are
treated fairly, just like other posters.

>> b)
>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>
> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.

Yes they have historically; and there is no reason to believe it will
not happen again unless the charter forbids it.
Does it create extra work by stating it? No : it just makes clear what
is expected.

>> c)
>> Posts will only be rejected on the content of the post and not on the
>> identity, or presumed identity of the poster.
>
> The conflict with g) is discussed elsewhere.
>
>> d)
>> The moderators will define a newsgroup in which all issues regarding
>> moderation may be discussed. (This newsgroup is referred to as <the
>> appropriate newsgroup> throughout this charter).
>
> What is a newsgroup? Seriously. Your statement does not state (or
> imply) that the newsgroup is in the UK hierarchy, or is propogated.
> For example a newsgroup on a local instance of INN on the moderation
> server would count.

It does not matter: the moderators are free to name a "newsgroup" which
is accessible to the public - they may also define what that word means
if they wish. Of course if they wish to be obtuse they can name a
newsgroup which no-one can access. This is the difference between
obeying the spirit of the charter as well as the letter.

>> e)
>> In the case where a poster has a submission rejected, he may raise a query
>> in the appropriate newsgroup, where a member of the moderation team will
>> respond to the query in a reasonable time.
>

> To be nitpicky - "reasonable time" is meaningless. If the aim is to
> give direction then you need to elaborate on that a bit more even if it
> doesn't get in the charter.

Not necessary: the word reasonable is often used in legal contexts and
industrial procedures without being precisely defined. It gives freedom
to people without nailing them down unnecessarily. The moderators may
chose themselves what they feel is reasonable. If they are asked what
they think is a reasonable time, then they ought to be able to say. Do
you really, really expect that level of detail in a charter? I thought
that you wanted a certain level of freedom and discretion.


>> f)
>> Queries regarding moderation policy may be raised in the appropriate
>> newsgroup. A member of the moderation team will respond to "valid" queries
>> on behalf of the moderators in a reasonable time. "Valid" queries will be
>> those determined to be so by the moderators; the moderators will explain
>> why, if they deem a query to not be "valid".
>
> I really don't understand the valid/invalid distinction here. Again I
> want more elaboration. I am sure that there are unanswerable queries.
> Also as it doesn't state who can query moderation policy, it is just a
> rod for the moderators' backs. It also means that the moderators cannot
> use a killfile in 'the appropriate newsgroup'.

I am trying to give the moderators a level of freedom. I am happy for
them to decide whether a query is valid or otherwise: and then to stand
by their discussion. Why should not any member of the Usenet public ask
questions about the moderation policy and get answers? Such questions
have clearly been asked in the past, and have been totally disregarded
and ignored. That is not right. Look at how many times the moderators
have been asked what is the policy on banning? Nothing.

There is no way that such a level of detail is required in a charter.

Of course the moderators can use a kill-file in the appropriate group.
All they do is announce something like that all messages concerning URCM
moderation must be posted in (say) unnm and must start with the words
"URCM Moderation": they will need to know how to operate their kill-file
though.



>> g)
>> An individual who has seriously or consistently violated the group's
>> charter may, for a fixed stated period, be banned from using the group.
>> These are the only circumstances under which an individual may be banned
>> from posting to the group. In such a case, the moderator must immediately
>> inform the offender by email
>
> It may not be able to possible to inform the offender by email.
> Obviously everyone should use addresses that do exist and do accept
> email, there may well be some (especially if they are considering
> seriously violating the group's charter) who use false email addresses
> which cannot be contacted.

OK - it should say "if valid email address is given"

>> duration; the reason will also be posted in the appropriate newsgroup.
>
> We do not highlight such bans at the moment. If a poster wishes to
> announce that they have been sanctioned that is their right, but I
> wouldn't want to 'out them'.
>

I think that if someone is posting to a public newsgroup and they are
banned, then they cannot object to that ban being made public.
Obviously there will be excellent reasons for the ban, which the
moderators will stand by; and everyone will be able to see that justice
has been done. I think that you eed to understand that there is a
difference between a newsgroup charter and the specification of laws of
the land.

The clarifications you have asked for would nearly all require a greater
imposition of restrictions on the moderators. That should not be
necessary. No charter can be absolutely water tight such that it would
stand up in a court of law. "Reasonable" should be the moderator's
watchword, and if they really cannot see that, then I fear there is no
hope for them.

[Brighton]

I have not intentionally ignored any suggestions from the original
comments. If I have missed any, then I apologise. Which ones were you
thinking of?

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 15:28, Tony wrote:
> On 2012-09-07, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
>
>>> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
>>> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
>>> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
>>> similar behaviour.
>
>> There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
>> to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
>> uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.
>
> I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
> people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
> the size of the issue.
>

I replied last time:

I don't know the precise number I have not counted them: 1,2, 10, 12??
It is a problem of unacceptable behaviour and arrogance by the
moderators whether it is 1 or 20 which is not to be seen in any other
moderated group.

I genuinely do not know the number - it is not something I have been
counting. The moderators certainly ignored my own recent queries. I
accept that it is probably not a large number - perhaps one a month: but
it happens, and it is intentional.
I see no harm in saying that such behaviour, however infrequent, is
unacceptable. If it is a small number, then it will not involve the
moderators in much extra work.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <k2d363$cmn$1...@news.datemas.de>,

Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>On 07/09/2012 12:00, Andy Leighton wrote:
>)
>>> The moderation software for URCM does not deal with emails sent to or
>>> from the moderators in a consistent fashion which is independent of the
>>> domain of the poster's email address
>>
>> This is clearly untrue.
>
>I am sorry - but I and others disagree for the reasons discussed ad
>nauseum elsewhere in this thread. Only in the last two or three weeks
>have there been posts/emails not handled correctly because they were
>from outlook.com.

Firstly, the problem with outlook.com was an unintended configuration
error and was fixed as soon as we found out about it. So there is no
need for you to try to "fix" it with an RFD.

Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, your proposed wording
requires us to _undo_ that fix: your wording would require us to
remove the special exceptions which enable email from hotmail users to
be delivered.

So your proposal on this point is to take something which is not
broken and "fix" it by making it broken, in direct opposition to your
stated intentions in the rationale.

>>> All posters are treated equally and fairly.
>>
>> This is a not a good rule. It forbids use of whitelisting for example.
>
>I think you will find that the term "equally and fairly" is used
>throughout various legislations: I think that most people do not have a
>problem in understanding what it means.
>It does not forbid whitelisting at all: it means that the process should
>be equal and fair. If anyone makes a certain number of posts to the
>group which are accepted, then they should become whitelisted: they are
>treated fairly, just like other posters.

Treating all people equally and treating them fairly are not the same
thing. I would interpret a requirement to treat all posters equally
as forbidding discrimination on the basis of a poster's past
submissions to the group, for example.

Others seems to agree. So writing the wording the way you have done
is just an invitation for people to complain about whitelisting, etc.

If what you mean is that we should treat people fairly - that is, base
our decisions only on relevant aspects of their postings and their
past behaviour (such as whether they previously posted on- or
off-topic or borderline messages, etc.) - then we already think we do
that. I don't understand why you think writing this into the charter
will help.

>>> b)
>>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>>
>> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.
>
>Yes they have historically;

No, that is simply not true. No-one's posts have ever been
intentionally delayed in urcm.

>Not necessary: the word reasonable is often used in legal contexts and
>industrial procedures without being precisely defined. It gives freedom
>to people without nailing them down unnecessarily. The moderators may
>chose themselves what they feel is reasonable. If they are asked what
>they think is a reasonable time, then they ought to be able to say. Do
>you really, really expect that level of detail in a charter? I thought
>that you wanted a certain level of freedom and discretion.

Your problem is surely that you disagree with the moderators on many
subjects. Writing extra wording in the charter which the moderators
will interpret contrary to your wishes will not help you.

>>It may not be able to possible to inform the offender by email.
>>Obviously everyone should use addresses that do exist and do accept
>>email, there may well be some (especially if they are considering
>>seriously violating the group's charter) who use false email addresses
>>which cannot be contacted.
>
>OK - it should say "if valid email address is given"

There might be other reasons.

Anyway, we are going to clarify this in our moderation policy.
Hopefully this will make this part of your RFD obsolete.

>>We do not highlight such bans at the moment. If a poster wishes to
>>announce that they have been sanctioned that is their right, but I
>>wouldn't want to 'out them'.
>
>I think that if someone is posting to a public newsgroup and they are
>banned, then they cannot object to that ban being made public.

We disagree.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:45:34 +0100, Brighton

<bright...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 07/09/2012 15:28, Tony wrote:
>> On 2012-09-07, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>
>>>> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
>>>> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
>>>> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
>>>> similar behaviour.
>>
>>> There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
>>> to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
>>> uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.
>>
>> I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
>> people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
>> the size of the issue.
>>
>
>
>I replied last time:
>
>I don't know the precise number I have not counted them: 1,2, 10, 12??
>It is a problem of unacceptable behaviour and arrogance by the
>moderators whether it is 1 or 20 which is not to be seen in any other
>moderated group.

It's probably closer to 20 than 1. And quite likely higher than 20.

[Bertie Wooster]

On 07 Sep 2012 16:57:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson

All posters are treated fairly... But some posters are treated more
fairly than others.

Yes, that seems to fit the urcm moderators' doctrine quite well.

Was it fair the way you placed MattB on the
delay^h^h^h^single-moderator list until he left urcm for good?

I thought that was particularly unfair.

Whatever my personal opinion is of Judith and Nuxxy, is it fair that
you have imposed an indefinite ban without telling them what they may
do to be un-banned?

While I can live with them being banned as collateral damage, it still
appears to be unfair.

So ok. Your idea seems reasonable. Treat all posters fairly, and we
can be the judge to see that you do.

>>>> b)
>>>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>>>
>>> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.
>>
>>Yes they have historically;
>
>No, that is simply not true. No-one's posts have ever been
>intentionally delayed in urcm.

I believe they have. Furthermore, I believe you know they have.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> There seems to be a certain amount of misinformation floating around
> regarding the moderation system, email, and emailing the moderators. I
> hope the following summary might prove enlightening.

It might if you actuallay got your facts right.

> * Posting *
>
> The email address of the moderation machinery is entirely unfiltered -
> anyone can submit posts regardless of their From: header.
>
> * Emailing the moderators (not posting)*
>
> The moderators may be contacted by email, via urcm-moderators at
> chiark.greenend.org.uk or uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request at
> usenet.org.uk (the latter forwards to the former).

>
> The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an exception
> has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's postmaster can forward
> on messages from people whose email is rejected by SAUCE; the intention
> is that their email addresses are then white-listed, so they should then
> be able to email the moderators directly.

This is UNACCEPTABLE. Users should not be expected to jump through
poorly documented and obscure hoops.

Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
to their mail to the moderators, nor will they recieve rejection
notices from the moderation system or ANY mail passing via chiark.
Chiark is blacklisted by Hotmail and many other systems because it
uses abusive probing. This behaviour causes excessive system loads
and is indistinguishable from methods used by spammers to harvest
valid address lists.

>
> * Acknowledgements / rejection notices *
>
> If you post from a deliverable From: (which many people chose not to),

> you will get an acknowledgement of your post and an acceptance /
> rejection notice[0], unless your mail provider blocks chiark[1]. In any
> case, the moderation logs are available so anyone can see how the state
> of their posts:
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.urcm

More non-standard poorly documented hoops for users to jump through.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Chiark is BROKEN by design and the administrator refuses to remove
abusive and non RFC compliant features.

The moderation system should be moved to an RFC compliant mail server
so that users can recieve the level of service they are entitled to
expect from a moderated group.

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
> uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) writes:
>
> > We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)
> > came up to me and whispered:
> >
> >>
> >> The moderators' contact address is behind SAUCE, although an
> >> exception has been made for hotmail/outlook users. Chiark's
> >> postmaster can forward on messages from people whose email is
> >> rejected by SAUCE; the intention is that their email addresses are
> >> then white-listed, so they should then be able to email the
> >> moderators directly.
> >
> > Not acceptable. The moderators address should accept email from any
> > legitimate source, including Hotmail.
>
> Was it not clear that the exception means that email from hotmail[0]
> bypasses SAUCE? hotmail users can email the moderators
> directly. Further, when the moderators become aware that someone's
> having trouble getting in touch, then their address is whitelisted.

Which is totally useless because chiark is blacklisted for abusive
behaviour so users will never recieve any messages.

If users jump through enough obscure hoops they can post and send
email to the moderators but what use is a one-way system with no
possibility of recieving a reply or any messages from the moderation
system.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:45:34 +0100, Brighton
><bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>>On 07/09/2012 15:28, Tony wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-07, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
>>>>> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
>>>>> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
>>>>> similar behaviour.
>>>
>>>> There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
>>>> to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
>>>> uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.
>>>
>>> I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
>>> people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
>>> the size of the issue.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I replied last time:
>>
>>I don't know the precise number I have not counted them: 1,2, 10, 12??
>>It is a problem of unacceptable behaviour and arrogance by the
>>moderators whether it is 1 or 20 which is not to be seen in any other
>>moderated group.
>
>It's probably closer to 20 than 1. And quite likely higher than 20.

Thank you both for the subjective responses. Is there an objective
response that let's people assess the size of the issue?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:21:18 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:

>Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
>to their mail to the moderators, nor will they recieve rejection
>notices from the moderation system or ANY mail passing via chiark.

That is Microsoft's doing, though. Good luck getting them to change.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Tim Jackson]

On 07 Sep 2012 16:57:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

> Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, your proposed wording
> requires us to _undo_ that fix: your wording would require us to
> remove the special exceptions which enable email from hotmail users to
> be delivered.
>
> So your proposal on this point is to take something which is not
> broken and "fix" it by making it broken, in direct opposition to your
> stated intentions in the rationale.

I think this argument comes down to semantics - what you mean by
"fixed" and "broken" is not what Brighton means.

What Brighton wants is for you to change your email server's behavior so
that you don't *need* to make any special exceptions to ensure delivery
from Hotmail and Outlook.com. (And which won't need further special
exceptions when other such cases crop up in the future.)

What *you* mean is that Hotmail and Outlook.com are broken for not
behaving the way your server expects them to. So you've fixed that by
making special exceptions.

However, the current wording of the RFD doesn't make it unambiguously
clear that what Brighton wants is as I've stated above. It could
instead be read the way you are taking it, so I think it needs amendment
before any vote.

I don't feel qualified to comment on which of you is right, and what if
anything is broken.

But I do note that your server has been criticised here by people who
appear to be more knowledgeable than me, and who (as far as I am aware)
have neither an anti-cyclist agenda nor strong views against the way you
moderate urcm.

I also note that apparently there is a separate issue that Hotmail
dislikes the way your server behaves so much that it rejects
acknowledgement emails you send to posters.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Brighton]

On 07/09/2012 12:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <rfd2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20120906222312$16...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>,
> sun flower <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> My comments since last time remain unaddressed.
>
> This RFD's new charter clauses fall into two categories:
>
> * Things the moderators feel they are doing already. For example, we
> already reply to what we think are "valid" questions in unnm.
> Obviously the proponent thinks otherwise, but a charter change
> isn't going to help the proponent.

You may feel that you are doing that: others would disagree.
If it is a specific requirement of the charter and you refuse to answer
reasonable valid questions then you will be clearly going against the
charter. If someone can demonstrate that, then a vote of no confidence
in the moderators could follow. As it is, there is no specific
requirement on you to do this reasonable thing: and you don't.

If there are other things in the proposal which you feel that you are
already doing, then that is good as it will not create any extra work
for you by specifically putting them in the charter. Win-win.


> * Things which are a bad idea. To take only two examples: the
> requirement to treat all email domains identically would result, if
> the moderators honoured it, in the removal of the special exception
> which allows hotmail users to email the moderators; the requirement
> to treat all posters identically would prohibit the passlist.

If the moderators cannot see emails and posts and reply to them
irrespective of the domain used, then the system is broken. It is as
simple as that.
You have been told this time and time again. I personally am not
bothered if the fault lies with the moderators, the moderation software,
chiark or whatever. I repeat, the system is broken and should be fixed.
I have not actually said that all posters must be treated "identically",
what I did say was "All posters are treated equally and fairly". I
think that this is a very reasonable requirement on the moderators, and
anyone who suggests that you will not be able to have pass-lists etc is
being quite disingenuous. That same phrase is used quite often as a
requirement in government documents and in a semi-judicial context: I
am sorry that you and another moderator cannot understand what would be
required of you.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
(Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:

> I will see about fixing it in my CFT
> but TBH it's not very high up on my priority list.

As its a requirement of the RFC, welcome to RFC-Ignorant.org

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:33:35 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:45:34 +0100, Brighton
>><bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/09/2012 15:28, Tony wrote:
>>>> On 2012-09-07, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
>>>>>> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
>>>>>> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
>>>>>> similar behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>> There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
>>>>> to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
>>>>> uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.
>>>>
>>>> I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
>>>> people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
>>>> the size of the issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I replied last time:
>>>
>>>I don't know the precise number I have not counted them: 1,2, 10, 12??
>>>It is a problem of unacceptable behaviour and arrogance by the
>>>moderators whether it is 1 or 20 which is not to be seen in any other
>>>moderated group.
>>
>>It's probably closer to 20 than 1. And quite likely higher than 20.
>
>Thank you both for the subjective responses. Is there an objective
>response that let's people assess the size of the issue?

Only if someone is willing to trawl through the unnm archives.

[Percy Picacity]

On 2012-09-07 12:50:00 +0000, Paul Cummins said:

> We were about to embark at Dover, when mat...@debian.org (Matthew Vernon)

> came up to me and whispered:
>

>> Was it not clear that the exception means that email from
>> hotmail[0] bypasses SAUCE?
>

> That's what is claimed. It's not true though.
>
> 220 chiark.greenend.org.uk sauce-smtpd ESMTP ready [Pleased]
> helo host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com
> 250 chiark.greenend.org.uk hello
> @host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com
> (postm...@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com?)
> mail from: <tram...@hotmail.com>
> 250 Warning! Deferral likely: problematic MAIL-FROM: [65.55.92.136.] RSET
> (for verify, pipelining) [65.55.92.136.] => 554 Transaction failed
> rcpt to: <urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk>
> 550-HELO name lookup revealed misconfiguration: Error during DNS A lookup
> for www.hotmail.com: DNS alias found where canonical name wanted
> [Irritated]
>
> Hotmail users cannot email the moderators directly.
>
> If Jackson claims otherwise, he is, again, lying.
>
> Tram...@hotmail.com is a valid email address that I control.
>
> And, while we are at it...
>
> 220 chiark.greenend.org.uk sauce-smtpd ESMTP ready [Irritated]
> helo host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus
> 250 chiark.greenend.org.uk hello
> @host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus
> .com (postm...@host109-150-248-225.range109-150.btcentralplus.com?)
> mail from: <tram...@hotmail.com>
> 250 Warning! Deferral likely: problematic MAIL-FROM: [65.55.37.88.] RSET
> (for ve
> rify, pipelining) [65.55.37.88.] => 554 Transaction failed

> rcpt to: <postmaster>
> 501 Syntax error in parameter to RCPT [Irritated]
>

> Sauce is not RFC compliant. Which, coming from the "author" of dpkg, is a
> shock (not)

You have not caused a Hotmail server to send an email and the failure
is not due to your hotmail 'from' address. You seem to have exposed a
problem, but not a failure to accept mail from Hotmail. (Clue: one
subtle way to test that particular issue would be to use (or register)
a hotmail address and send an email from webmail to one of the
published chiark addresses.)

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On 07 Sep 2012 16:57:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson

<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:


>Firstly, the problem with outlook.com was an unintended configuration
>error and was fixed as soon as we found out about it. So there is no
>need for you to try to "fix" it with an RFD.

Until the next time that is. Your system is broken, it is not fit for purpose
- how come so many people are telling you that, and yet you cannot see it?

>Treating all people equally and treating them fairly are not the same
>thing.

Perhaps that is why the wording "fairly AND equally" is proposed.

> I would interpret a requirement to treat all posters equally
>as forbidding discrimination on the basis of a poster's past
>submissions to the group, for example.

Absolute rubbish.

The more you wriggle - then the more the need for some sort of change becomes
obvious.

You need to be fair. Is that too difficult a concept for you to understand?

You need to treat people the same (equally) - don't delay Matt B's posts hoping
that he will fuck off. Don't give him his own moderator, hoping that he will
fuck off.

Oh look - he has done. Well at least you did not have to ban him for ever.

>Others seems to agree. So writing the wording the way you have done
>is just an invitation for people to complain about whitelisting, etc.

When you say "others" you mean the other moderators who have commented.

>If what you mean is that we should treat people fairly - that is, base
>our decisions only on relevant aspects of their postings and their
>past behaviour (such as whether they previously posted on- or
>off-topic or borderline messages, etc.) - then we already think we do
>that. I don't understand why you think writing this into the charter
>will help.

I am sorry you do not understand the concept of "fairly". Perhaps if you did
an RFD would not have been required.

>>>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>>>
>>> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.
>>
>>Yes they have historically;
>
>No, that is simply not true. No-one's posts have ever been
>intentionally delayed in urcm.

It is well known that there were certain people : Matt B for one, thirty-six
for another who had their posts delayed. You pretended that you really needed
to read the messages in some detail - and pass round all the moderators so that
they could all comment. Of course this was not *deliberately* delaying those
posts: it just achieved the desired effect.

As you once said : "As we've previously explained, we sometimes leave a post in
the queue while we think about it" - did that cause a delay do you think?
Several hours; a couple of days?
Quite pathetic.

>Anyway, we are going to clarify this in our moderation policy.
>Hopefully this will make this part of your RFD obsolete.

What's this - you are producing a moderation policy?

What on earth has prompted that?

[Judith]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:24:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:23:12 +0100, sun flower
><bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
><snippage>
>
>So: a person who is too craven to admit their real identity demands
>that a group of people who have expressed a clear preference for not
>interacting with those whose only interest in cycling is to goad and
>bait cyclists with the aim of scoring points, be forced to interact
>with said group.
>
>I think the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram
>adequately covers this.
>
>Guy


Creating new identities? Whatever next?

"Tell me Mr Chapman, did you create an identity and an email address just so
that you could harass the defendant? Is it true that you made an error and
used the same IP address which your company had previously allocated to you to
use, when you posted as this fictitious character?"

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when k...@under.the.invalid (Percy
Picacity) came up to me and whispered:

> (Clue: one
> subtle way to test that particular issue would be to use (or
> register) a hotmail address and send an email from webmail to
> one of the published chiark addresses.)

You are correct.

x-store-info:D6taffyBScEUZsL+ZXbbDoZx0yi5SZyscP4JbYej8ZjhvLXhb2jJRCQWMvt2Q
NGcu3srJDwavPzTWm1Y+MVrrFbEdt4N0yMYkSto13f1TiPRHQjIXlExzHNmu1b3MKzoHV7sRLl
h+Bs=
Authentication-Results: hotmail.com; sender-id=pass
header.from=postm...@mail.hotmail.com; dkim=none
header.d=mail.hotmail.com; x-hmca=pass
X-SID-PRA: postm...@mail.hotmail.com
X-SID-Result: Pass
X-DKIM-Result: None
X-AUTH-Result: PASS
X-Message-Delivery: Vj0xLjE7RD0wO0dEPTA7U0NMPTk7bD0x
X-Message-Info:
AuEzbeVr9u5fkDpn2vR5iCu5wb6HBeY4iruBjnutBzpStnUabbM/X3OHG1tkHI7a3kMiU15mwZ
kdItk0fkPUd26iJME4hbgAR+RCB0ejIvg=
Received: from blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.111.169]) by
BAY0-HMMC2-F2.Bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4900);
Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:46:09 -0700
From: postm...@mail.hotmail.com
To: tram...@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:45:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="9B095B5ADSN=_01CD8B313591FF12000217C9blu0?omc4?s30.bl"
X-DSNContext: 7ce717b1 - 1378 - 00000002 - C00402EF
Message-ID: <TuAyHsjC...@blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Return-Path: <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2012 18:46:09.0997 (UTC)
FILETIME=[0C1C4FD0:01CD8D29]

This is a MIME-formatted message.
Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail
program.

--9B095B5ADSN=_01CD8B313591FF12000217C9blu0?omc4?s30.bl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk




--9B095B5ADSN=_01CD8B313591FF12000217C9blu0?omc4?s30.bl
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns;blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;BLU170-DS25
Arrival-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:45:54 -0700

Final-Recipient: rfc822;urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk
Action: failed
Status: 5.4.0

--9B095B5ADSN=_01CD8B313591FF12000217C9blu0?omc4?s30.bl
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from BLU170-DS25 ([65.55.111.137]) by
blu0-omc4-s30.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:45:54 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [109.150.248.225]
X-EIP: [bbkjymqT+t72B3YicE/vuoOB8zkOGxUY7MCVloskSeg=]
X-Originating-Email: [tram...@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU170-DS2549AC9EF...@phx.gbl>
Return-Path: tram...@hotmail.com
From: "Paul Cummins" <tram...@hotmail.com>
To: <urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: <urcm-mo...@moderation.org.uk>
Subject: Test
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:46:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD8D31.75487850"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2012 18:45:54.0970 (UTC)
FILETIME=[03275FA0:01CD8D29]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD8D31.75487850
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This email is a hotmail bounce test.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD8D31.75487850
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258"></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: =
15px"=20
id=3DMailContainerBody leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 =
CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20
name=3D"Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=3DCalibri>This email is a hotmail bounce=20
test.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CD8D31.75487850--



--9B095B5ADSN=_01CD8B313591FF12000217C9blu0?omc4?s30.bl--

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Just zis Guy, you know? <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:21:18 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
> >Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
> >to their mail to the moderators, nor will they recieve rejection
> >notices from the moderation system or ANY mail passing via chiark.
>
> That is Microsoft's doing, though. Good luck getting them to change.

No, it is a result of abusive behaviour by chiark.
Stop the abusive behaviour and then ask Microsoft to lift the ban.
Simple.

[Matthew Woodcraft]

Paul Cummins <paul.c...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:
> rcpt to: <urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk>

> Hotmail users cannot email the moderators directly.

In the log you posted, 'chiark' is misspelt as 'ciark'. So it's not
surprising it doesn't work.

-M-

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> urcm-mo...@ciark.greenend.org.uk

Paul, my advice is drop it.

[michael adams]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ofk48hgj48k8isgh...@4ax.com...

> "Tell me Mr Chapman, did you create an identity and an email address just so
> that you could harass the defendant?

There is no defendant.

Turning up in court wearing women's clothes and a wig
and speaking with a squeaky voice will be of little
avail once you're called to the witness box and asked
to state your real name, under oath, Frank.


michael adams

...

[Danny Colyer]

On 07/09/2012 17:21, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
> Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
> to their mail to the moderators,

They will, as long as hotmail doesn't have a problem with gmail, because
in the early days of urcm we set up a gmail account specifically for the
purpose of contacting hotmail users.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:37:29 +0100, Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>Nobody can dictate to MS what they will or won't accept, and as for
>the methods of spam detection used on any server, only that server's
>sysadmin can judge the proportionality of their methods of detection,
>dependent on the extent to which spam is a problem for their users, to
>whom they are answerable.
>I can't imagine /why/ MS object to recipient's servers verifying the
>validity of mails purporting to come from their domain, but they do.

They object because it is indistinguishable from a dictionary attack, one
of the prime tools of spammers themselves. So, to Microsoft, chiark appears
to be just another spam server trying to harvest addresses.

>As a result, MS domains are just about the most popular addresses to
>spoof

MS domains are popular to spoof simply because they are popualr, full stop.

> (which increases the load on MS systems by other servers
>attempting to validate sender addresses)

Which, in fact, very few other servers do, as their operators are aware of
how antisicial such actions are.

>, and a reasonable alternative
>to asking MS if the user is valid is simply to refuse mails from MS
>domains.

No; a rewasonable alternative is to use tried and tested anti-pam tools
instead of dumping the problem on an innocent third party.

>To a certain extent, this is what many anti-spam systems do, by giving
>a weighting against MS domains in evaluating whether any particular
>email is spam or not.

No, they don't. That's just a figment of your imagination.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Steve Walker]

"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:dAvLVgSbreSQFwoW@[127.0.0.1]...
> Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:22:00
> <memo.2012090...@postmaster.local.domain> uk.net.news.config
> Paul Cummins <uset...@stedtelephone.invalid>
>
>>We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
>>(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:
>>
>>> I may be wrong and reporting
>>> malicious words but it seems you have been in and out of jail
>>
>>You are wrong and are reporting malicious words. We've recently had the
>>same discussion on uk.legal
>
> I don't follow that group. Have you been in and out of jail or not?
>
>>Moreovreven if it were true, it would have no relevance in the discussion,
>>so why do you feel the need to raise it, true or not?
>
> I guess it is about morals. If you really haven't been in and out of jail
> why don't you just say so and be done with it?

What possible relevance does this spiteful ad hominem have to the RFD?

[Matthew Vernon]

urcm has always had a moderation policy; it seems that the moderators
are proposing to update it.

Matthew

--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life

[Judith]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:35:07 +0100, Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 07 Sep 2012 16:57:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>Anyway, we are going to clarify this in our moderation policy.
>>>Hopefully this will make this part of your RFD obsolete.
>>
>> What's this - you are producing a moderation policy?
>
>urcm has always had a moderation policy; it seems that the moderators
>are proposing to update it.

I wonder has it ever been published? I can't remember ever seeing it - or was
it just that they could do what ever they wanted?

How timely that they are currently updating it - an amazing coincidence - but
perhaps it's a bit late now.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Not really. It is the result of a behaviour by chiark, but the
behaviour is not abusive. If people had their servers properly
configured to stop relaying, it would all be unnecessary anyway. Open
relays are the biggest problem IMO. Well, no, the biggest problem is
spammers, who should be drowned in bovine slurry, but the biggest
weakness is open relays in my experience. At one point over 98% of all
the mail hitting my servers was spam, I was rejecting over a million
emails a day, and that was one firm of a few thousand employees. The
DNSBL killed most of them.

[Judith]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:02:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:51:38 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:21:18 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
>>> >to their mail to the moderators, nor will they recieve rejection
>>> >notices from the moderation system or ANY mail passing via chiark.
>>>
>>> That is Microsoft's doing, though. Good luck getting them to change.
>>
>>No, it is a result of abusive behaviour by chiark.
>>Stop the abusive behaviour and then ask Microsoft to lift the ban.
>>Simple.
>
>Not really. It is the result of a behaviour by chiark, but the
>behaviour is not abusive. If people had their servers properly
>configured to stop relaying, it would all be unnecessary anyway. Open
>relays are the biggest problem IMO. Well, no, the biggest problem is
>spammers, who should be drowned in bovine slurry, but the biggest
>weakness is open relays in my experience. At one point over 98% of all
>the mail hitting my servers was spam, I was rejecting over a million
>emails a day, and that was one firm of a few thousand employees. The
>DNSBL killed most of them.
>
>Guy

Yes but you are a "thought leader" and now how to deal with such things. A
"professional" if ever there was. Tell us about the day you registered an
email address to harass Nuxx Bar and how it went right up your arse because you
didn't understand IP addresses.

Come on now : don't be shy.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:54:44 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) considered Fri, 7 Sep

>2012 14:07 +0100 (BST) the perfect time to write:
>
>>We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
>>(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:
>>

>>> Ummm, unless I am mistaken you haven't shown a lot of interest
>>> in cycling.
>>>
>>> What happened, Paul?
>>
>>There isn't an appropriate Cycling group in the hierarchy.
>
>I'm sure you can raise a rfd for the creation of uk.rec.cyclingtrolls

Just rename the existing urc.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:02:07 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:51:38 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:21:18 +0000 (UTC), c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hotmail users and users of many other systems will NEVER recieve replies
>>> >to their mail to the moderators, nor will they recieve rejection
>>> >notices from the moderation system or ANY mail passing via chiark.
>>>
>>> That is Microsoft's doing, though. Good luck getting them to change.
>>
>>No, it is a result of abusive behaviour by chiark.
>>Stop the abusive behaviour and then ask Microsoft to lift the ban.
>>Simple.
>
>Not really. It is the result of a behaviour by chiark, but the
>behaviour is not abusive.

It is abusive. It's a form of backscatter.

> If people had their servers properly
>configured to stop relaying, it would all be unnecessary anyway. Open
>relays are the biggest problem IMO.

Open relays are a very, very tiny part of the problem these days. Most spam
comes from botnets and throwaway budget hosting accounts.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:10:27 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> considered Fri, 07 Sep 2012
>17:16:54 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>All posters are treated fairly... But some posters are treated more
>>fairly than others.
>>
>There is no evidence at all that any poster is treated differently
>than any other poster who behaves in the same way.
>The moderators go to some lengths to ensure that a consistent approach
>is used.

I can't believe that you believe that! Even the gruppenf�hrer has
admitted the contrary to be true.

>>Yes, that seems to fit the urcm moderators' doctrine quite well.
>>
>>Was it fair the way you placed MattB on the
>>delay^h^h^h^single-moderator list until he left urcm for good?
>>
>>I thought that was particularly unfair.
>
>It was exactly what he wanted - absolute consistency on all moderation
>of his posts to a degree that was not possible with multiple human
>moderators.

Not true. He simply wanted to be treated fairly.

>>Whatever my personal opinion is of Judith and Nuxxy, is it fair that
>>you have imposed an indefinite ban without telling them what they may
>>do to be un-banned?
>
>It's pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to think - since both
>posters are actually anonymous, they simply need to post from one of
>their other (no doubt, plentiful) identities in a civil manner and on
>topic, and to continue to do so.

Really? If Judith posted to urcm using the JudithM ID about her Dutch
Bike amid how to service the back pedal brake, it would be allowed.

Judith - did you hear that. M'lord has spoken, and now we know the
banning policy.

[I think he's speaking tosh]

>>While I can live with them being banned as collateral damage, it still
>>appears to be unfair.
>
>Hardly collateral damage - it seems very precisely targeted at exactly
>the cause of the problems.

Ah, yes. Precise targeting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC114g9p2ug

>>So ok. Your idea seems reasonable. Treat all posters fairly, and we
>>can be the judge to see that you do.
>>
>>>>>> b)

>>>>>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.
>>>>
>>>>Yes they have historically;
>>>
>>>No, that is simply not true. No-one's posts have ever been
>>>intentionally delayed in urcm.
>>

>>I believe they have. Furthermore, I believe you know they have.
>
>Bull.
>You can't have SLAs in a service which is provided voluntarily.
>There is no guarantee that a moderator will even be online when posts
>arrive in the queue, or of how long it will be until one does come
>online.

Oh. OK. It is pure coincidence that some posters' posts are repeatedly
delayed longer than other posters' posts?

>The closer a post comes to whatever boundary is set, the more likely
>it is to require discussion between moderators, which will clearly
>cause delay. That is not the moderators' fault, but that of the
>poster who sailed too close to the wind for a single moderator to be
>confident of giving a consistent decision.
>And the more people complain about minor inconsistencies, the more
>moderation discussions are required, to ensure consistency.

And yet there still ain't no consistency.

>It ain't rocket surgery, just cause and effect.

Agreed. The effect is caused by unfair moderation.

[Colin Reed]

On 07/09/12 18:26, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:33:35 +0100, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In uk.net.news.config, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:45:34 +0100, Brighton
>>> <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/09/2012 15:28, Tony wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-09-07, Brighton <bright...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/09/2012 11:34, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. We have had experience of continual nit-picking and requests
>>>>>>> (sometimes strident) for clarfication and response to a level which
>>>>>>> we felt was unacceptable. These changes increase the likliehood of
>>>>>>> similar behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There have been any number of cases of quite valid emails and postings
>>>>>> to unnm being totally ignored. In my opinion that is unacceptable in a
>>>>>> uk.net.* moderated group: it happens in no other as far as I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you were asked to let us know some examples of those, so that
>>>>> people who maybe don't read uk.net.news.moderation can have a view on
>>>>> the size of the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I replied last time:
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the precise number I have not counted them: 1,2, 10, 12??
>>>> It is a problem of unacceptable behaviour and arrogance by the
>>>> moderators whether it is 1 or 20 which is not to be seen in any other
>>>> moderated group.
>>>
>>> It's probably closer to 20 than 1. And quite likely higher than 20.
>>
>> Thank you both for the subjective responses. Is there an objective
>> response that let's people assess the size of the issue?
>
> Only if someone is willing to trawl through the unnm archives.
>
Well, if someone's willing to write an RFD, you'd think they'd at least
be willing to do some basic groundwork. But then again, maybe not.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:18:43 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>Open relays are a very, very tiny part of the problem these days. Most spam
>comes from botnets and throwaway budget hosting accounts.

Happy to believe it, certainly spam volumes went down when Srizbi was
taken down. Happily I no longer sysadmin email.

[Colin Reed]

On 07/09/12 19:37, Judith wrote:
> On 07 Sep 2012 16:57:28 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>

>> Firstly, the problem with outlook.com was an unintended configuration
>> error and was fixed as soon as we found out about it. So there is no
>> need for you to try to "fix" it with an RFD.
>
> Until the next time that is. Your system is broken, it is not fit for purpose
> - how come so many people are telling you that, and yet you cannot see it?

You need to define a more specific purpose. If I defined that
moderation software servers must accept all current and potentially
future email servers, then that would be quite imposssible. At the time
URCM was configured, the current outlook.com wasn't in use as a server.
Now it is, the problem has been sorted.

>
>> Treating all people equally and treating them fairly are not the same
>> thing.
>
> Perhaps that is why the wording "fairly AND equally" is proposed.

Which, as mentioned already, is impossible. I think the wording you are
looking for is "fairly OR equally", but I guess there'd be obvious
protests at that.

>
>> I would interpret a requirement to treat all posters equally
>> as forbidding discrimination on the basis of a poster's past
>> submissions to the group, for example.
>
> Absolute rubbish.

Perfectly accurate rubbish (if you insist on the "rubbish" label).

>
> The more you wriggle - then the more the need for some sort of change becomes
> obvious.
>
> You need to be fair. Is that too difficult a concept for you to understand?

The inherent contradiction of fair and equal on a system that may employ
a whitelist is clearly too difficult a concept for you to understand.

>
> You need to treat people the same (equally) - don't delay Matt B's posts hoping
> that he will fuck off. Don't give him his own moderator, hoping that he will
> fuck off.
>
> Oh look - he has done. Well at least you did not have to ban him for ever.
>
>> Others seems to agree. So writing the wording the way you have done
>> is just an invitation for people to complain about whitelisting, etc.
>
> When you say "others" you mean the other moderators who have commented.

It hardly matters - if any else agrees you'll call them a wannabe
moderator or some equally playground based insult, and find a reason in
your own mind to dismiss it - in fact fairly similar behaviour you'd
like to accuse the moderators of.

>
>> If what you mean is that we should treat people fairly - that is, base
>> our decisions only on relevant aspects of their postings and their
>> past behaviour (such as whether they previously posted on- or
>> off-topic or borderline messages, etc.) - then we already think we do
>> that. I don't understand why you think writing this into the charter
>> will help.
>
> I am sorry you do not understand the concept of "fairly". Perhaps if you did
> an RFD would not have been required.

See above.

>
>>>>> No poster's submissions will be intentionally delayed.
>>>>
>>>> No-one's posts have been intentionally delayed.
>>>
>>> Yes they have historically;
>>
>> No, that is simply not true. No-one's posts have ever been
>> intentionally delayed in urcm.
>

> It is well known that there were certain people : Matt B for one, thirty-six
> for another who had their posts delayed. You pretended that you really needed
> to read the messages in some detail - and pass round all the moderators so that
> they could all comment. Of course this was not *deliberately* delaying those
> posts: it just achieved the desired effect.

The definition of intention is a little beyond your comprehension, it seems.

<snip>

> Quite pathetic.

Reasonable summary of your contribution to...well, pretty much
everything so far.

>
>> Anyway, we are going to clarify this in our moderation policy.
>> Hopefully this will make this part of your RFD obsolete.
>
> What's this - you are producing a moderation policy?
>

> What on earth has prompted that?
>

Balanced response to some complaints that everything is not perfect,
rather than most of the pantomime being acted out here?

[Colin Reed]

On 07/09/12 10:46, Brighton wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 23:37, Colin Reed wrote:
>> On 06/09/12 23:23, sun flower wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
>> Surely you can't have both c) and g) in the same charter.
>
>
> Yes well spotted.
>
> I propose 3) is changed to say:
>
> Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster (unless the
> poster is banned), nor on the assumed identity of the poster, but purely
> on the content of the post.
>
> Unless anyone has another suggestion.
>

How about "Posts will not be rejected on the identity of the poster,
except on the occasions that they are."[1]?

That should cover it.


[1] With apologies to J Paxman, esq. weatherman extraordinaire.

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 23:25:49 <k2ds9e$nj2$1...@dont-email.me> uk.net.news.config
Colin Reed <co...@not-here.nowhere.com>

>Well, if someone's willing to write an RFD, you'd think they'd at least
>be willing to do some basic groundwork. But then again, maybe not.

It does seem a case of a general moan without evidence.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:43:07
<4rmk481vical607ja...@news.markshouse.net>
uk.net.news.config Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

>No, they don't. That's just a figment of your imagination.

would you like to try that again without the spelling mistakes?

[Wm...]

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 21:59:53 <k2dna3$s8q$1...@dont-email.me> uk.net.news.config
Steve Walker <spam...@beeb.net>

I wanted to clear something up.

If Paul hasn't been in and out of jail then I am giving him a chance to
clarify rather than attacking him.

Do think, please.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
(Wm...) came up to me and whispered:

> If Paul hasn't been in and out of jail then I am giving him a
> chance to clarify rather than attacking him.

What's to clarify? Either I have or I have not been inside.

I have answered the question more than once, but people like Wm keep
pulling it up as if it's new, whenever they need to attack me.

The answer has no basis on whether the charter of UCRM should be amended,
it's simply a spiteful and pointless personal attack.

Which is what I have come to expect from the author.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----