From: Brett Kottmann (bkottmann@webteamone.com)
Date: Sun Jun 09 2002 - 16:31:04 CDT
On 2002-06-08 3:30 PM, "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2002 04:26:42 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> said...
>
>>> But tell me, how many groups are actually hand moderated these days?
>>
>> I'd say most of the moderated groups are still hand-moderated, although
>> there are a growing number of groups moderated by nearly as many different
>> automated programs as there are groups.
>>
>>> Is it not much more common to use a bot (e.g. stump) which applies some
>>> filtering rules (crosspost limits, blacklists, etc) and then posts it
>>> automatically?
>>
>> Nope.
>
> That surprises me somewhat. In uk.*, it is almost universal for groups
> to be moderated by means of a filter-bot such as stump.
>
> Anyway, time to summarize the discussion on the moderators' list. Cc to
> the Usefor mailing list.
>
> 1. Usefor is proposing that articles sent to moderators should be
> encapsulated within the email as a complete news article, ready to
> post. The content-Type should be set to application/news-transmission.
> However, moderators SHOULD be prepared to accept articles in the style
> that predominates currently (sending the complete article as a mail
> message) for a long overlap period (a couple of years at least, and
> likely much more).
...
I don't see it as a problem. When I was co-moderating the WWII newsgroup I
always saved the article(s) to be posted and then processed them. The new
format would mean a change to saving the attachment instead. Automated
systems should be easy to change (assuming they were coded well ;).
I strongly suggest using a firm "use by" date for the new format. Otherwise
we'll be stuck with "legacy" articles forever and ever.
Brett Kottmann
bkottmann@webteamone.com