Easy way to know if a UseNet group is moderated?

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by John Doe, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Just in case I'm missing something...

    Is there an easy way to tell whether a UseNet group is moderated?

    Kind of annoying when posting if the post doesn't show up immediately and
    suspecting that it's because the group is moderated.

    John Doe, Jan 5, 2015
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Doe

    Paul Guest

    They don't necessarily follow a naming convention.
    So that's not a good way to detect them in advance.



    "In most cases, you can't tell if a newsgroup is moderated
    just by looking at the name. You will have to look at the
    articles within the group. If you use my master Usenet
    newsgroup list, it will tell you if a group is moderated.


    One of the news servers had an actual groups list page,
    but that is gone. There has to be a file somewhere on the
    server, that has the details (because the server needs it
    to operate).

    Paul, Jan 5, 2015
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Doe

    Larc Guest

    | Just in case I'm missing something...
    | Is there an easy way to tell whether a UseNet group is moderated?
    | Kind of annoying when posting if the post doesn't show up immediately and
    | suspecting that it's because the group is moderated.
    | Thanks.

    If a post of mine didn't show up, I'd first suspect my ISP or some other level of
    routing. With USENET clearly on its deathbed, I doubt there are many actively
    moderated groups anymore.

    Larc, Jan 5, 2015
  4. John Doe

    Johnny Guest

    I guess it depends on which news reader you are using. Claws Mail has
    moderated beside the group if it is moderated.
    Johnny, Jan 5, 2015
  5. John Doe

    Paul Guest

    OK, a bit more searching jogged my memory. The
    file on the server is called the "active" file,
    and it has the names of the newsgroups.

    telnet nntp.aioe.org 119
    list active

    And that gives three samples out of 29000 or so.

    mozilla.support.seamonkey 0000014458 0000011857 n
    uk.rec.cycling 0000236360 0000233382 y
    uk.rec.cycling.moderated 0000045530 0000044785 m

    The article here, gives the key to the flags field.
    N is no posting, Y is posting allowed, M is moderated.


    The only problem with this, is in this particular
    case the file appears to "flap in the breeze". I
    can find moderated groups with "y" and not "m"
    as they're supposed to have. And unmoderated
    groups with "m" and not "y".

    I'm going to have to guess that "list active"
    is not a reliable way to get that information.

    Paul, Jan 5, 2015
  6. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Off-topic nonsense...
    John Doe, Jan 6, 2015
  7. John Doe

    VanguardLH Guest

    I see about 130+ moderated newsgroups from the Albasani NNTP server.
    They don't carry all groups so someone, say, using Giganews might count

    There have never been a lot of moderated newsgroups. Requires someone
    to volunteer their time to authenticate all the submissions. Does that
    sound like a job you would like to do and for free and at all times
    throughout the day? Also, moderated groups are the antithesis of Usenet
    which was born and designed to be a worldwide mesh network of servers
    that had no control over the content they carried (think of Tor today).

    Seems many of the moderated newsgroups were originally mailing lists
    where moderation was employed by whomever was administering the mailing
    list. They decided to hook into Usenet but still wanted their moderated
    mailing list. Moderated newsgroups have an e-mail backside and why
    there's the delay. Nowadays the mailing list seems integrated with an
    NNTP server they're using but e-mail notification to the admin of the
    group is still there. Besides having to waiting until a real person
    decides what to do about your post, remember that e-mail is NOT a
    guaranteed delivery service. This isn't the only example of hooking
    into Usenet to accomodate a different paradigm for communication. Many
    web-based forums run NNTP-to-HTTP proxies so they can leech, er, borrow
    the content of Usenet to pretend they have a larger community or provide
    a web-based UI to boobs that can't figure out a couple of config
    parameters in setting up an NNTP client.

    That's why it is so comical when posters use the X-No-Archive header or
    1st-line body header trying to hide their posts (and punch holes in
    threads) after some period of time over which they have no control. The
    web-based archives don't give a gnat's fart about this header. Google
    will expire an article marked with this header after 6 days (so such a
    poster effective punches holes in threads to which they reply).
    Clients, web based forums leeching from Usenet, and archives other than
    Google Groups (e.g., Howard Knight) don't honor that header. The poster
    trying to hide his post after a week (and obviously who considers their
    post as insignificant so they should have never posted) is a boob
    because their article is still archived somewhere. They think their
    article will expire in a week. They have no control over the expiration
    since it is a request to the server or to whomever retrieves a copy of
    their article. Okay, I comply with their "X-No-Archive: Yes" request
    and my expiration is zero; i.e., I immediately expire their posts. They
    think they're moderating the lifetime of the post. They're clueless.

    Back to moderated forums, think of a convention center announcing "free
    speech forums" but after entering you find about 5% of the cubicles
    aren't free speech at all. Yes, we all know the argument that freedom
    does not preclude responsibility but Usenet is not a political
    organization. It is an anarchy so moderation is out of place. If users
    want a regulated or moderated venue to communication with other users
    then they should go to web-based forums (and suffer the flattened
    threads versus the hierarchical ones available in Usenet to determine
    who said what to whom).

    Perhaps before the Usenet reorganization, the mod.* groups were like
    having private forums: only those invited could play. It kept out
    everyone else. Not just the bad posters but all posters except for
    those enlisted in the elite group. Apparently they wanted to rely on
    the worldwide mesh network of NNTP server with its redundancy rather
    than any one of them having to setup their own private NNTP server and
    rely on login credentials to keep out the riff raff. Anyone can operate
    their own NNTP server, like news.grc.com or news.mozilla.org, and not
    peer it to Usenet to keep the community small and focused. They can
    even require login credentials to operate a private non-peered server
    versus a public non-peered server. But those require running your own
    NNTP server. A moderated newsgroup requests someone else to have their
    server do the notification.

    Filtering is how you modify the Usenet so you see what you want to see.
    Alas, many Usenetizens are too lazy or ignorant to define their own
    filters. Users wanting a comfy cozy environment that has someone else
    do the filtering should go to web-based forums where moderation is the
    [expected] norm. Those with thin-skinned egos shouldn't be in Usenet.

    There have been so few moderated newsgroups in the past that I doubt the
    percentage has changed much over the years. Many web-based forums
    popped up to provide a more cozy and protected environment for those too
    weak to endure the anarchy of Usenet.

    You won't be happy with the limited number of moderated newsgroups
    unless you only participate in very few topics and there happen to be
    moderated groups that cover those. Then there's the delay to get your
    submission accepted and then when it finally appears. Usenet is not
    designed to provide immediate response, like a chat room, so the added
    delay may tax your patience.
    VanguardLH, Jan 6, 2015
  8. There'll be something in the headers. an approval line, if nothing else.

    Michael Black, Jan 6, 2015
  9. John Doe

    Paul Guest

    That's why some moderated groups are robo-modded.

    Software called STUMP is used. This reduces the workload.

    Return-Path: <>
    Path: typhoon.sonic.net!... arwm.stump.algebra.com!robomod!not-for-mail
    X-ARWM-Policy: http://stump.algebra.com/~arwm
    X-ARWM-Info-1: Send submissions to
    X-ARWM-Info-2: Send complaints to
    X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
    X-Robomod: STUMP, (Igor Chudov), C++/Perl/Unix Consulting
    X-Moderation-1: Hassle-Free commercial hosting of moderation sites available
    X-Moderation-2: See http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump
    Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:42:26 CST
    From: "Yowie" <yowie9644 at ...com>
    Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca.moderated

    And the moderator could be a team of people, in different
    time zones.

    I agree though, that being a mod wouldn't be a lot of fun.
    Even with help.

    Paul, Jan 6, 2015
  10. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Easy solution... Let the original poster moderate the discussion.

    Works on YouTube. If only they had UseNet threading.

    And to be even greater, let the moderation be hierarchical. Anybody can
    refuse or allow a direct reply. Only original posts would be moderated by
    the group moderator, or not at all. After the original post, the moderator
    is the person you reply to. How much control you have just depends on how
    many people reply in the thread after your post. Everybody would have
    control over their own branch, the ability to delete everything after their
    post. Simple and extremely efficient.
    John Doe, Jan 6, 2015
  11. That's nonsense.

    Now that anyone can post, instead of raising people up to a certain level,
    the masses have lowered the internet down. Just because someone says
    something doesn't make it right. So if the original poster can turn
    remove comments, then they can clear out any challenge. But since they
    have spewed the original comment out there, they aren't fit to judge any
    challenges to what they've said.

    On Usenet, everyone is equal. Just because someone starts a thread
    doesn't mean they are dominant.

    But in the current internet, it's about "my space". So that blogger or
    facebook page owner or whatever, they in effect set themselves up as
    authority, since it's their space. I've seen lots of blog postings where
    the poster hasn't grasped what's going on, or has missed bits of history,
    yet they are perceived as 'the expert" because they own the blog. Bad
    information shouldn't be allowed to have high travel, yet if nobody can
    comment, then the bad information gets the travel.

    I've been in too many situations where I'm supposed to be secondary to the
    blogger, in the form of the comments can only be a relatively few words.
    That also keeps the rest of the world secondary to the blogger, yet
    sometimes one needs more words to put the blogger's post in perspective.

    The last one to be able to "moderate" is the one who would lose by
    comments challenging what they have said.

    Michael Black, Jan 6, 2015
  12. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    I guess so, since nobody has presented any logical counterargument.
    A limited version is working great on the biggest video website
    on the Internet. Having it extended to the hierarchical threading
    in UseNet would be even better.
    But seriously... Anyone can create "a challenge" since anyone can post
    original. Problem is for people who want to troll other people in their
    space. Because obviously trolling is what goes on much of the time.

    It would be the best of all worlds. It would give definition to UseNet.
    For example, people who are efficient at providing factual information
    would be much easier to read.
    John Doe, Jan 6, 2015
  13. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Anybody who thinks UseNet is dying should check out (alt.usage.English)...

    There might be even better examples, but that's one extremely active group
    I'm familiar with.
    John Doe, Jan 6, 2015
  14. John Doe

    Char Jackson Guest

    [stupid crossposting retained because I don't know where Michael Black
    posted from]

    I wonder how Michael feels about you changing "nonsense" (his word to
    describe your ill-advised idea) to "brilliant" (your own assessment of your
    harebrained idea).
    You've apparently censored your world to the point where anything you
    disagree with is simply ignored.
    Except for two things:
    1. It isn't working great on youtube. There are no discussions there.
    2. Usenet isn't anything at all like youtube.
    I'll give you credit there. You're an expert at trolling.
    Is that the main problem for you? You're having difficulty reading?
    I think that can be fixed, but you have to want to.
    Char Jackson, Jan 6, 2015
  15. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "It isn't working great on youtube. There are no discussions there."

    That ridiculous assertion is where I stopped reading the regular troll's
    post this time. Obviously it's just clueless. There is very lively
    discussion all over YouTube.

    John Doe, Jan 6, 2015
  16. John Doe

    Ed Propes Guest

    After serious thinking Paul wrote :
    i same thing back my old fidonet days and found out soon it not
    something you do to make friends.

    Ed P.
    Ed Propes, Jan 6, 2015
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.