REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern.
Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator
for a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it
unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new moderator.
Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group
listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management
Board.
comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.
However, I'm concerned that removing the group would lose existing
posts. That's honestly probably not a huge deal, but it would be
a pity IMHO.
Would it be possible to leave comp.lang.c.moderated as it is (can't
post to it, but servers with sufficiently long memories still allow
old articles to be read)?
If that's not feasible, it should be possible for someone (maybe
even me) to take over as moderator to keep the group alive, but
not allow any new posts. This would be an alternate way to keep
the status quo.
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern. I've emailed the former moderator, who
may or may not choose to weigh in.
Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.
comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.
On 12/03/2025 01:44, Keith Thompson wrote:
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern.
Alas, netfunny.com is just a default Apache page... unless you know
something I don't?
On 3/11/25 8:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of
the lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a
moderator for a long time and have been unused for years. We
consider it unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new
moderator. Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator
for a group listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8
Management Board.
comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually reviving it.
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time
there was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
Otherwise, the Big-8 Board could omit it from this list of 99
moderated groups.
On 11.03.2025 21:44 Uhr Keith Thompson wrote:
Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> writes:
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator
for a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it
unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new moderator.
Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group
listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management
Board.
comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.
The I think deleting is the best option. The idea is to keep usenet
usable, which means defunct stuff will be removed.
However, I'm concerned that removing the group would lose existing
posts. That's honestly probably not a huge deal, but it would be
a pity IMHO.
Archives like narkive.com exist which don't delete groups when rmgroup messages are being sent.
Would it be possible to leave comp.lang.c.moderated as it is (can't
post to it, but servers with sufficiently long memories still allow
old articles to be read)?
Technically it would be, but I prefer to either make it usable or delete
it.
Archive servers may keep it anyway.
If that's not feasible, it should be possible for someone (maybe
even me) to take over as moderator to keep the group alive, but
not allow any new posts. This would be an alternate way to keep
the status quo.
That makes no sense because the group is still unusable.
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
Otherwise, the Big-8 Board could omit it from this list of 99--
moderated groups.
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:
[...]
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off. We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c. One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:[...]
Archives like narkive.com exist which don't delete groups when rmgroup
messages are being sent.
As far as I can tell, narkive.com doesn't exist.
On 12/03/2025 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:
[...]
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.-a We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.-a One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be in
that category.
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Count me in for 4-+%. I think Tim would be willing, too.
NEWSGROUP LINES:
comp.binaries.cbm For the transfer of 8bit Commodore binaries. (Moderated)
On 12/03/2025 22:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 12/03/2025 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?
[...]
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there >>>> was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
He's tooIf the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.-a We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.-a One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
in that category.
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve asCount me in for 4-+%. I think Tim would be willing, too.
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
On 12/03/2025 22:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 12/03/2025 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?
[...]
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there >>>>> was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
He's tooIf the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.-a We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.-a One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
in that category.
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve asCount me in for 4-+%. I think Tim would be willing, too.
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?
comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP >servers with sufficiently long memories.
One way to do that would be
just to leave it out of the proposed mass-deletion. Another would be
for a new moderator to take over but not approve any posts, perhaps with
an email auto-responder to let any posters know what's going on.
But I'm open to seeing clcmod revived if there's enough demand, and
perhaps helping out somehow.
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
RATIONALE:
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.
In article <87ikodda8j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
On 12/03/2025 22:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 12/03/2025 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?
[...]
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there >>>>>> was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?
I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.
He's tooIf the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.|e-a We've also been discussing >>>>> it in comp.lang.c.|e-a One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest >>>>> in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
in that category.
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve asCount me in for 4|e-+%. I think Tim would be willing, too.
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).
Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?
comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP >>servers with sufficiently long memories.
Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.
There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of >robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that >prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be >willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without >moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
[snip]
Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.
There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?
news.blueworldhosting.com shows 9540 articles in comp.lang.c.moderated
going back to 2006.
groups.google.com and narkive.com have archived articles (I don't know
how complete the archives are), but via ugly (IMHO) web interfaces.
[...]
- Ethical considerationsI expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...]
groups.google.com is, at this point, completely disconnected
from USENET, so won't even see the rmgroup. I have no idea
what narkive will do; I've never quite figured out how to use
it's interface (there are some surprisingly pathological
behaviors I've never figured out how to work around).
On 2025-03-11, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
(Moderated)
comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
(Moderated)
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and performance.
(Moderated)
rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)
comp.simulation Simulation methods, problems, uses. (Moderated) rec.arts.ascii ASCII art, info on archives, art, & artists.
(Moderated)
sci.bio.evolution Discussions of evolutionary biology. (Moderated) sci.bio.phytopathology All aspects of plant diseases and pests.
(Moderated)
sci.chem.organic.synthesis Synthetic organic chemistry related topics.
(Moderated)
soc.politics Political problems, systems, solutions.
(Moderated)
soc.politics.marxism Karl Marx and his legacy in theory and practice.
(Moderated)
On 3/13/25 8:42 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in
- Ethical considerations
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...]
that event.
Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant workload for one volunteer long-term.
On 3/14/25 10:16 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is
starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant
workload for one volunteer long-term.
Are you volunteering to run the robo-moderator?
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of >robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that >prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be >willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without >moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R
Personally, I think this robo-moderation idea has the risk of being a
lot of effort for little reward.
In <vqtir0$2ukis$1@dont-email.me> Rayner Lucas ><usenet2025@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:
[snip suggestion of robo-moderating some groups]
Not necessarily saying that it applies here, but there have been
multiple past efforts to save or robo-moderate newsgroups by parties who >might have even had a direct subject-matter interest in the specific >newsgroups. They eventually gave up because the newsgroups were empty
or they wound up only relaying trash (abuse, off-topic, and SPAM).
You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong" things (whatever others >think "wrong" is).
Will your provider charge by the byte? Do you have the resources to
pay for long-term access to bulk Usenet? What happens if you go away
(other time commitments, health, death, etc.). Who will take over?
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful (offshore
gambling, marketing scams, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) or >denial-of-service flooding? Will others understand that even though you
are the poster, you are just automatically relaying it without review?
Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you? Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern. I've emailed the former moderator, who
may or may not choose to weigh in.
Having little prior interest in moderated newsgroups, I'm not
familiar with the moderation process, or at least its technical
details; however, I have for a long time had interest in netnews
and Internet standards in general, so I'd be willing to give it
a try, including entirely by myself. However, my preference
would be to be a part of a team instead, as I don't feel ready
to invest effort in the process on a daily basis.
I'd be interested in (co)moderating the following groups.
> comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
> (Moderated)
> comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
> (Moderated)
> rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and performance.
> (Moderated)
> rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)
Also on news.groups, Steve Bonine warned that when groups are removed,
the history associated with the contents of the group will disappear,
which could hinder people doing (historical) research.-a He agreed that removing the unused groups in the RFD would prevent users from wasting
their time posting into the void, but said that at this time it's not
worth the effort to delete them.-a Winston shared Steve Bonine's
concern about the contents of deleted groups disappearing.-a Computer
Nerd Kev said that converting the groups to unmoderated ones may work
around this problem.
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)It looks like the previous moderator set up robomod in 2005[1] and was
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
rec.arts.anime.creative Original works by fans, related to anime/manga. (Moderated)
On 2025-03-28, Tristan Miller wrote:
On 2025-03-13 21:03, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
On 2025-03-11, Usenet Big-8 Management Board wrote:
I'd be interested in (co)moderating the following groups.
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
(Moderated)
comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
(Moderated)
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and performance.
(Moderated)
rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)
Moderation is most conveniently done with a dedicated software
package, and we'd be happy to advise you on the options and with
getting one of them set up on your infrastructure.
In any case, it's always a good idea to have multiple moderators.
Would you be willing to post calls for volunteers in the groups
related to the ones you are interested in moderating? I could
suggest at least the following:
comp.newprod -> comp.misc
comp.std.announce -> comp.misc, comp.std.misc rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature -> rec.music.makers.guitar, rec.music rec.photo.moderated -> rec.photo.misc
rCo Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org>:
NEWSGROUP LINES:
comp.binaries.cbm For the transfer of 8bit Commodore binaries. (Moderated)
Being a long-time C= User (only Amigas, but I own an C=64 emulation
cd-rom), I don't see the vanish of this group as a big loss.
On 2025-03-11, Usenet 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
99 moderated newsgroups.
rec.arts.anime.creative Original works by fans, related to anime/manga. (Moderated)It looks like the previous moderator set up robomod in 2005[1] and was
using it satisfactorily until some time in 2016. The robomod service
has been discontinued which is why the modmail address raac-moderator@robomod.net is not working.
I have no interest in running manual moderator approval flows for
r.a.a.c but I do have my own email domain and an always-online server
with a static IP, so if there is an equivalent service to robomod, or if
the robomod software still works self hosted, I would be interested in running it for rec.arts.anime.creative.
[1]: https://www.usenetarchives.com/threads.php? \ id=rec.arts.anime.creative&y=0&r=0&p=671
From: Alice <alice@nowhere.invalid>Reply-To: Alice <alice@example.net>
Newsgroups: example.newsgroupMessage-Id: <k9jluEK3D9GNCJR-yKcIdRiIsWgOR792@example.invalid>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 08:24:48 +0000
Subject: test
I've created the following email addresses (currently aliased to
one of my mailboxes) for articles to comp.newprod, comp.simulation,
comp.std.announce and rec.photo.moderated, respectively:
I plan to use my existing Eternal September account to inject
the approved articles. It dawned on me, however, that allowing
that same account to be used by co-moderators (should there be
any), such as via the web interface I intended to deploy, would
perhaps be seen as abuse, so instead I will be providing access
to the queue for the co-moderators to pick articles from there,
and post the approved ones via their own accounts. (Having an
account that allows posting Approved: articles thus becomes a
requirement for prospective co-moderators.) Alternatively, I
can add a co-moderator's email to my aliases(5), so they get
copies of new submissions.
On 2025-05-09, Tristan Miller wrote:
On 2025-05-09 09:45, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
I've created the following email addresses (currently aliased to
one of my mailboxes) for articles to comp.newprod, comp.simulation,
comp.std.announce and rec.photo.moderated, respectively:
Thanks! Could you please also provide us with a moderator contact
address for each of the four groups? (This would be used in the
event that we, the ISC, or posters need to contact the moderators.)
Whether or not allowing your co-moderators to use a web interface
that posts approved messages using your Eternal September account
counts as "abuse" is up to the Eternal September admins. Possibly
they will be OK with this as long as you agree to take ultimate responsibility for the posts, but you should ask them in advance
for confirmation about this.
By the way, have you examined the existing newsgroup charters and moderation policies for the groups you want to take over? These
should be available at <https://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/>.
You should make sure that you are willing and able to moderate the
groups according to these charters and policies. There's no formal procedure for changing them, but if any major changes are necessary,
an RFD could be initiated, and we can help with that.
The INET distribution initially existed in parallel to (but within
the namespace of) the regular Big 8 Distribution. Over time, leakage between the two distributions made them virtually indistinguishable.
In October 2002, the moderators of news.announce.newgroups announced
that the INET groups would be included in future checkgroups
messages. This decision was made so as to facilitate issuance of checkgroups messages for the Big 8, rather than recognition of
which INET groups had demonstrated traffic or interest.
Finally, and this is entirely optional, but you may want to consider creating web pages for each of the groups where you provide its
charter, moderation policy, submission address, moderator contact
address, list of moderators, signing key, and any other pertinent information. This can help make the group more discoverable online
and collect important information in a somewhat less ephemeral
location.
> Thanks! Could you please also provide us with a moderator contact
> address for each of the four groups? (This would be used in the
> event that we, the ISC, or posters need to contact the moderators.)
Sure:
comp-newprod-contact@newsmod.am-1.org comp-simulation-contact@newsmod.am-1.org comp-std-announce-contact@newsmod.am-1.org rec-photo-moderated-contact@newsmod.am-1.org
> By the way, have you examined the existing newsgroup charters and
> moderation policies for the groups you want to take over? These
> should be available at
> <https://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/>.
> You should make sure that you are willing and able to moderate the
> groups according to these charters and policies. There's no formal
> procedure for changing them, but if any major changes are necessary,
> an RFD could be initiated, and we can help with that.
There do not seem to be any charters on file for comp.newprod,
comp.simulation, or comp.std.announce.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:07:43 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,422 |