REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
101 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, those groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of those groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years.
NEWSGROUP LINES:
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who". (Moderated)
rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who". (Moderated)
I didn't realise the moderator had left, but
true nobody's been using it
On Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:38:59 -0500, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who".
(Moderated)
I didn't realise the moderator had left, but
true nobody's been using it
hard to use a moderated group if nobody's approving posts ;)
I'm still of the belief that lost-moderator groups have moderation
flag unset.
In news.groups.proposals Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>
wrote:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 101 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, those groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of those groups haven't had a moderator
for a long time and have been unused for years.
How are you determining "haven't had a moderator for a long time"?
At least rec.arts.movies.reviews hasn't been "unused for years".
NEWSGROUP LINES:
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who".
(Moderated)
Hmm, rec.arts.drwho is the only unmoderated group I know which
could still do with moderation. I didn't realise the moderator
had left, but true nobody's been using it (and I haven't been
reading rec.arts.drwho because of the noise or the discussion
gaps that result from me trying to killfile its sources).
Mind you, I haven't been watching new Dr Who either since it went
off broadcast TV in Australia, so I'm not really a potential user
now.
rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
Hey, you sure this isn't still working? It's been low traffic for a
long time and with last post from August 2024 I still would've
still thought of it as active (since I'm purely a review reader not
a review writer, it's not my place to try posting).
On 04.01.2025 15:38 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
rec-arts-movies-reviews: mod-bounce.no-mod-info@isc.org
This is the current state in the aliases file, so currently no mod exist
and the group can't be used.
https://rec.arts.movies.reviews.narkive.com/
Last post is more than 10 years ago.
On 04.01.2025 15:38 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
At least rec.arts.movies.reviews hasn't been "unused for years".
Do you see a change to revive that, either by finding a new mod or
changing it to unmoderated?
rec.arts.movies.reviews Reviews of movies. (Moderated)
Hey, you sure this isn't still working? It's been low traffic for a
long time and with last post from August 2024 I still would've
still thought of it as active (since I'm purely a review reader not
a review writer, it's not my place to try posting).
rec-arts-movies-reviews: mod-bounce.no-mod-info@isc.org
This is the current state in the aliases file, so currently no mod
exist and the group can't be used.
Subject: The Clogging
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 14:45:20 -0400
Message-ID: <Ub6hp7$qgh5$1@dont-email.me>
https://rec.arts.movies.reviews.narkive.com/
Last post is more than 10 years ago.
On 05.01.2025 02:13 Uhr noel wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jan 2025 15:38:59 -0500, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who".
(Moderated)
I didn't realise the moderator had left, but
true nobody's been using it
hard to use a moderated group if nobody's approving posts ;)
I'm still of the belief that lost-moderator groups have moderation flag
unset.
Am am not an English native speaker, I might misunderstood your
sentence.
Moderated groups will cause the NNTP (actually NNRP) server to send submissions to the moderation relays that will alias that to the actual
mod address.
If the moderation flag is being removed, the submissions
will be directly posted to the group. This would mean a group is then unmoderated. Such a change needs a control message sent out by the
hierarchy administrator.
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one line entry
in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated groups that
haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
On 05/01/2025 15:04, noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead
of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no
harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a
one line entry in active file which already has thousands of
unmoderated groups that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
I think because many servers would not respect the change of group,
either because GPG keys are not updated or for other reasons (I've
heard that this is the main reason since the 90s, as there has never
been a unified coordination between newsmasters, and each newsmaster
is free to do what he wants)
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 02:24:43 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
On 04.01.2025 15:38 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
rec-arts-movies-reviews: mod-bounce.no-mod-info@isc.org
This is the current state in the aliases file, so currently no mod
exist and the group can't be used.
https://rec.arts.movies.reviews.narkive.com/
Last post is more than 10 years ago.
Ummmm, no, I have posts here from 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018,
and all way down to 2013.
Approved: rec-arts-movies-reviews-moderator@robomod.net
was injected by giganews and most recent Aug 9 2024, previous was
July 29 2024, It's not a heavily used group by looks of it, but is
sporadicly active.
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead
of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no
harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one
line entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated
groups that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
On 05.01.2025 09:03 Uhr noel wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 02:24:43 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
rec-arts-movies-reviews: mod-bounce.no-mod-info@isc.org
This is the current state in the aliases file, so currently no mod
exist and the group can't be used.
https://rec.arts.movies.reviews.narkive.com/
Last post is more than 10 years ago.
Ummmm, no, I have posts here from 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018,
and all way down to 2013.
Approved: rec-arts-movies-reviews-moderator@robomod.net
was injected by giganews and most recent Aug 9 2024, previous was
July 29 2024, It's not a heavily used group by looks of it, but is
sporadicly active.
Can you give message-IDs, please?
I would like to investigate that.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 05.01.2025 09:03 Uhr noel wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 02:24:43 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
rec-arts-movies-reviews: mod-bounce.no-mod-info@isc.org
This is the current state in the aliases file, so currently no
mod exist and the group can't be used.
https://rec.arts.movies.reviews.narkive.com/
Last post is more than 10 years ago.
Ummmm, no, I have posts here from 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020,
2018, and all way down to 2013.
Approved: rec-arts-movies-reviews-moderator@robomod.net
was injected by giganews and most recent Aug 9 2024, previous was
July 29 2024, It's not a heavily used group by looks of it, but is
sporadicly active.
Can you give message-IDs, please?
<H5-dnQLGTe2Yn0H8nZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220214-182551.875.0@news.giganews.com> <20230803002433.D7EB73AB@mailer.dailywire.com> <20240729-121432.170.0@news.giganews.com>
<Ub6hp7$qgh5$1@dont-email.me>
I would like to investigate that.
Then just tune in to any half-decent news server instead of some
clumsy web interface. Posts from recent years can be found on freenews.netfront.net and paganini.bofh.team as well as
news.ausics.net and the al.howardknight.net web archive:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=172445858100
I think because many servers would not respect the change of group,
either because GPG keys are not updated or for other reasons (I've heard
that this is the main reason since the 90s, as there has never been a
unified coordination between newsmasters, and each newsmaster is free to
do what he wants)
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead of
removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no harm,
no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one line
entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated groups
that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good idea. We are
here to discuss which of the groups might be still relevant and might be revived.
I know that servers exist that don't process control articles, but
why should I care?
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding active
groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good idea.
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of the
53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or greater are inactive, and have for many years.
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:24:46 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them
instead of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not,
there is no harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of
bytes for a one line entry in active file which already has
thousands of unmoderated groups that haven't been posted to in 10
years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding
active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good
idea. We are here to discuss which of the groups might be still
relevant and might be revived.
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of the
53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or greater are inactive, and have for many years.
On 07.01.2025 10:18 Uhr noel wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:24:46 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them
instead of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not,
there is no harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of
bytes for a one line entry in active file which already has
thousands of unmoderated groups that haven't been posted to in 10
years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding
active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good
idea. We are here to discuss which of the groups might be still
relevant and might be revived.
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of the
53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or greater are
inactive, and have for many years.
I advocate for deleting them. I sometimes go through group lists and
see groups with interesting topics, but all empty. Not a good user experience, so a cleanup is always a good idea.
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of the
53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or greater are
inactive, and have for many years.
I advocate for deleting them. I sometimes go through group lists and see groups with interesting topics, but all empty. Not a good user
experience, so a cleanup is always a good idea.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 15:04:29 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of
the 53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or
greater are inactive, and have for many years.
I advocate for deleting them. I sometimes go through group lists
and see groups with interesting topics, but all empty. Not a good
user experience, so a cleanup is always a good idea.
I certainly hope you're not baseing these inactive groups like you
did with the group Kev mentioned, you saw nothing, for 10 years you
said, we have posts all throughout, sorry Marco, I hardly think you
are in an appropriate position to call an RFD unless you use multiple
news servers (not all fed by same upstreams) to verify the real
status of the group, I know you're new to the big 8 team, so I hope
you take that as constructive advice.
As I don't have my own news server, I can't check the spool.
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead
of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no
harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one
line entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated
groups that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good idea. We are
here to discuss which of the groups might be still relevant and might
be revived.
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead
of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no
harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one
line entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated
groups that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good idea.
Greetings.
On 2025-01-04 09:30, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
101 moderated newsgroups.
The audience for potential moderators of these specific newsgroups is
not to be found here in news.groups.
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.groups
[...]
Brilliant stuff there, Way to literally go behind everybody's back.
Where do you suggest we post the RFD, then?
Should we cross-post the RFD to all of the affected groups? I doubt our
own news server would accept such an article, and others might also
reject it for excessive cross-posting. But maybe I am wrong.
Should we post a separate copy of the RFD to each of the affected
groups? Again, I'm worried this might trigger some automated
spam/flooding filters. But again, maybe I am wrong about this.
Besides the affected groups, is there a better place to reach an
audience of potential moderators?
Marco Moock on 05 Jan 2025 21:24:
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them instead of
removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not, there is no harm,
no extra resources used other than a handful of bytes for a one line
entry in active file which already has thousands of unmoderated groups
that haven't been posted to in 10 years anway.
I second that.
That's not to say other news servers, in particular the closed, posting_registration_reqd and paid servers have not honored the
rmgroups, as I obviously can't test them, nor all open read access
servers.
Tested: rec.arts.comics.info / rec.radio.broadcasting / rec.arts.comics.reviews
On 09.02.2025 22:13 Uhr noel wrote:
That's not to say other news servers, in particular the closed,
posting_registration_reqd and paid servers have not honored the
rmgroups, as I obviously can't test them, nor all open read access
servers.
Tested: rec.arts.comics.info / rec.radio.broadcasting /
rec.arts.comics.reviews
Can you give the names of the servers that didn't process the messages?
There was some discussion about verification failure for those messages,
so there might be a technical issue.
but I still use MAthematica, so maybe it can be unmoderated
On 13.02.2025 16:13 Uhr vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
but I still use MAthematica, so maybe it can be unmoderated
Defunct for more that 10 years. Do you know that people still want to
use it?
If so, we might change that to unmoderated.
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 07.01.2025 10:18 Uhr noel wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 15:24:46 -0500, Marco Moock wrote:
On 05.01.2025 09:04 Uhr noel wrote:
If nobody is moderating the groups, why not unmoderate them
instead of removing them, if they get use, fair enough, if not,
there is no harm, no extra resources used other than a handful of
bytes for a one line entry in active file which already has
thousands of unmoderated groups that haven't been posted to in 10
years anway.
The group lists are full of unused groups and that makes finding
active groups much harder, so cleaning that up is always a good
idea. We are here to discuss which of the groups might be still
relevant and might be revived.
an extra few hundred is hardly going to mater, especially when of the
53419 "Active" /cough/ groups here, I'd be betting 80% or greater are
inactive, and have for many years.
I advocate for deleting them. I sometimes go through group lists and
see groups with interesting topics, but all empty. Not a good user
experience, so a cleanup is always a good idea.
Well there are things I haven't posted about because I couldn't
find a vaguely relevant group. Cut back the groups and such people
as me will become even less active, while others will start OT
threads in unmoderated groups which can drive regulars away from
the few groups that do still remain active.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:24:18 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,603 |