I am chiming in as an individual.

Thank you, Chris, for contributing about potential software options.

I am delighted that the preparation for next year's software rental
fee has opened up the possibility of cost-free moderation software. I
think all of the moderators would love to have no-cost software!

I would like to move in a both/and direction for the moment: BOTH
raise funds so we will not be without software AND see if we can get
an effective free alternative. If we can get it in place before we
have to pay the software use fee, good and we can refund the monies
donated. If we can't get it in place fast enough, we can move ahead
with rental and keep looking without leaving rpm without moderation.

Jim

Progress toward the $360 goal continues. Great! All of us benefit
from the generosity of the donors.

Thanks to them, especially since they are giving at just the time when
ponds are going to sleep.

Jim

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 02:17:20 CST, Phyllis and Jim
wrote:

BOTH
raise funds so we will not be without software AND see if we can get
an effective free alternative. If we can get it in place before we
have to pay the software use fee, good and we can refund the monies
donated. If we can't get it in place fast enough, we can move ahead
with rental and keep looking without leaving rpm without moderation.

I like your plan and appreciate the efforts the moderation team puts
forth. I can't help you select software, but if the people doing the
selecting and moderating want a pay plan, I want to do my fair share
to keep RPM going.
--
Hal Middle Georgia, Zone 8
http://tinyurl.com/2fxzcb

We are now at 75%.

$270 of $360 has been donated.

Jim

We are now at 81%.

$295 of $360 has been donated.


Jim

In article
Galen Hekhuis writes:

I realize moderation has been going on for some time, and that the
ideal solution would be to do the whole thing without paying a cent.
There are few programs out there that are suitable for a bunch of
folks moderating a newsgroup. The fact that there are several
moderators precludes using a system set up for only one. ISP
constraints and "lag time," or the time between when a post is made
and when in actually appears after moderation tend to work against any
email type scheme.

Um, just so you know, moderated Usenet groups are entirely based
on an "email type scheme." New posts are diverted to the standard
moderation email address for the group.

These and some other constraints have pretty much
forced us to go with a web-based program for moderation. That
requires a "front end" to the program which can deal with most of the
spam and other stuff that a moderated group is subject to,

I will note, since you are on the threshold of paying for this
again, that your selected software also has a strong tendency toward
false positives with no helpful messages. I have yet to get a post
through to the moderation queue. (Unless this one happens to work.
I keep trying... Nope. Have to hotwire it yet again.)



--
Drew Lawson And I know there's more to the story
I know I need to see more
I need to see s'more, hear s'more
feel s'more. I gotta be s'more

Drew,

Have you suggestions for a reliable alternative software? Free would
be great. Less would be good. Reliable essential.

Jim

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:37:18 GMT, (Drew Lawson) wrote:

In article
Galen Hekhuis writes:

I realize moderation has been going on for some time, and that the
ideal solution would be to do the whole thing without paying a cent.
There are few programs out there that are suitable for a bunch of
folks moderating a newsgroup. The fact that there are several
moderators precludes using a system set up for only one. ISP
constraints and "lag time," or the time between when a post is made
and when in actually appears after moderation tend to work against any
email type scheme.

Um, just so you know, moderated Usenet groups are entirely based
on an "email type scheme." New posts are diverted to the standard
moderation email address for the group.

I am aware of that. What I was trying to say (unsuccessfully in this
case) is that there are several email based moderation schemes, as
opposed to web based moderation schemes. It is the moderation, not
the operation of the newsgroup, which makes use of email for
moderation undesirable in this particular application.

These and some other constraints have pretty much
forced us to go with a web-based program for moderation. That
requires a "front end" to the program which can deal with most of the
spam and other stuff that a moderated group is subject to,

I will note, since you are on the threshold of paying for this
again, that your selected software also has a strong tendency toward
false positives with no helpful messages. I have yet to get a post
through to the moderation queue. (Unless this one happens to work.
I keep trying... Nope. Have to hotwire it yet again.)

This is one of the advantages of having an unmoderated somewhat
"parallel" group (rec.ponds). One can quickly determine if the
problem is with the moderated group by posting identical articles to
both groups (no cross-posting, as that is automatically rejected by
the moderation software). Identical posts made through the same ISP
at the same time should yield identical results. If the results are
not the same (a post showing up in rec.ponds but not
rec.ponds.moderated) one may reliably assume that something in the
moderation chain is responsible.

We are currently trying to figure out and track down the problem of
"missing posts." Simply saying to the operator of the server that
hosts the moderation software that some of our posts are missing
doesn't bode well for resolution of an intermittent problem. It would
be far, far better to provide examples (complete with full headers).
If you have such please send them to rec.ponds.moderated, the
moderators (whose addresses are posted periodically, mine is at the
bottom of this message), or, if all else fails, post to rec.ponds.
Several moderators (myself included) monitor rec.ponds.
--
Galen Hekhuis
"Mistakes were made"

In article
Galen Hekhuis writes:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:37:18 GMT, (Drew Lawson) wrote:

Um, just so you know, moderated Usenet groups are entirely based
on an "email type scheme." New posts are diverted to the standard
moderation email address for the group.

I am aware of that. What I was trying to say (unsuccessfully in this
case) is that there are several email based moderation schemes, as
opposed to web based moderation schemes. It is the moderation, not
the operation of the newsgroup, which makes use of email for
moderation undesirable in this particular application.

Gotcha. That got clearer to me in some of the additional posts.


I will note, since you are on the threshold of paying for this
again, that your selected software also has a strong tendency toward
false positives with no helpful messages. I have yet to get a post
through to the moderation queue. (Unless this one happens to work.
I keep trying... Nope. Have to hotwire it yet again.)

This is one of the advantages of having an unmoderated somewhat
"parallel" group (rec.ponds). One can quickly determine if the
problem is with the moderated group by posting identical articles to
both groups (no cross-posting, as that is automatically rejected by
the moderation software). Identical posts made through the same ISP
at the same time should yield identical results. If the results are
not the same (a post showing up in rec.ponds but not
rec.ponds.moderated) one may reliably assume that something in the
moderation chain is responsible.

Oh, it is quite clear. I get the standard form message from devnull
at whereever, telling me that I must have used prohibited words
(without telling me what they are) and that I can resubmit it if I
think there is an error. (I never crosspost.)

Every post.

I suspect that it is objecting to somethnig (still no guesses as
to what) in the message headers. I'd wondered if it hated my domain
name, but your post quotes that, so it probably isn't the issue.

I know enough about Usenet to work around this, but I dislike doing
so. So I usually just don't post. I don't like that solution, as
I plan on putting a pond in this spring and may have design questions
over the winter.

We are currently trying to figure out and track down the problem of
"missing posts." Simply saying to the operator of the server that
hosts the moderation software that some of our posts are missing
doesn't bode well for resolution of an intermittent problem. It would
be far, far better to provide examples (complete with full headers).

Mine aren't missing, just blocked/bounced.


--
Drew Lawson | Radioactive cats have
| 18 half-lives
http://www.furrfu.com/ |

In article om,
Phyllis and Jim wrote:

I am chiming in as an individual.

Thank you, Chris, for contributing about potential software options.

I am delighted that the preparation for next year's software rental
fee has opened up the possibility of cost-free moderation software. I
think all of the moderators would love to have no-cost software!

I would like to move in a both/and direction for the moment: BOTH
raise funds so we will not be without software AND see if we can get
an effective free alternative. If we can get it in place before we
have to pay the software use fee, good and we can refund the monies
donated. If we can't get it in place fast enough, we can move ahead
with rental and keep looking without leaving rpm without moderation.

Jim

My question would be, just how bad could an unmoderated board for ponds
be? It's not political, religious or controversial, and aside from bulk
spam or the occasional flamer, I don't see the value of a omderated
board except to be a lot of work for someone. I subscribe to about 20
Usenet groups, and none of them are moderated. They manage to do fine.
Most everyone knows how to use a killfile, anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Drew Lawson wrote:
Um, just so you know, moderated Usenet groups are entirely based
on an "email type scheme." New posts are diverted to the standard
moderation email address for the group.

These and some other constraints have pretty much
forced us to go with a web-based program for moderation. That
requires a "front end" to the program which can deal with most of the
spam and other stuff that a moderated group is subject to,

I will note, since you are on the threshold of paying for this
again, that your selected software also has a strong tendency toward
false positives with no helpful messages. I have yet to get a post
through to the moderation queue. (Unless this one happens to work.
I keep trying... Nope. Have to hotwire it yet again.)

What you say is true, but just because the messages arrive via email
does not preclude the use of a web-front end for management purposes.


Thinking out loud here....
If I were to design a multi-user moderation system from scratch, I would
probably start with a Linux box running postfix (for receiving email),
Spamassassin (for scanning messages for spam), Squirrelmail with the
Bounce Addon (a webbased email client), and INN or Dnews (usenet server
software). While I'm at it, I would install Mailman too. Note that all
of this is free (except the computer itself to run everything).


(1) Start by setting up a regular user account (called "pondmod") for
the receiving of the incoming email posts for review. Give every
person on the moderation team the password to this account (note 1).


(2) Create 4 additional email folders for the pondmod account:
Spam, Ham, MaybeSpam, & Approved


(3) create a .procmailrc script on the pondmod account which would:
(a) move messages marked as spam (by spamassassin) to the MaybeSpam
folder so a moderator can review them for false positives (note 2).
(b) check the incoming message against a "blacklist" (containing both
email addy and sender's ip addresses). If it matches, move the message
to /dev/null.
(c) check the incoming message against a "whitelist" (containing both
email addy and sender's ip addresses). If it matches, "bounce" the
message to INN for posting to the group.


(4) set a crontab to run every 5 minutes where INN (or Dnews) will look
in the ~pondmod/Maildir/.Approved/cur folder. For each message it finds
there, add the appropriate "Approved:" tag and post to the rpm group
(removing the message from the folder when it's done).


(5) Do the same thing as step 4 for the messages in the Ham folder, but
do NOT remove the message (yet). Instead, run "sa-learn --ham" (part of
spamassassin) on the Ham folder and "sa-learn --spam" on the Spam
folder. Remove the messages in both folders at the completion of this
step. Note that doing this helps improve SpamAssassin's efficiency in
correctly identifying spam.


When one of the moderators wants to review the messages, they simply
logon to the Squirrelmail webpage and look at the messages in the Inbox.
To approve a message, they simply move the message to the Approved
folder. If a message is in the Inbox and is spam (but not marked as
spam), the moderator manually moves it to the Spam folder. The
moderator then needs to look in the "MaybeSpam" folder. Move any
messages which indeed are spam to the Spam folder; move any messages
which are not spam (should be approved) to the Ham folder.

Done this way, the task of moderating a newsgroup is no different than
simply checking one's email on gmail or hotmail.


Note 1: You could give every person on the moderation team their own
account if you wanted to. But if you do this, you'll need to create a
.procmailrc in their home directories pointing at pondmod's Maildir.
You'll also have to play with the permissions of the directory to make
sure they can read/write the files in that directory.

Note 2: The reason for moving messages Spamassassin thinks are spam to
the MaybeSpam folder, rather than just nuking them a
(a) risk of false positives - 1 false positive is worse than 1000 false
negatives. Said another way, you don't want to nuke legit messages.
(b) as already mentioned, running sa-learn helps SpamAssassin do a
better job of identifying spam in the future, resulting in lower false
positive and negatives.


Note 3: probably the hardest task in all of this is getting an existing
usenet server to accept your server's message uploads. You'll need to
find another Usenet server admin willing to accept your connections. On
the other hand, you don't need to worry about getting a download feed
from them at all.

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:40:48 GMT, (Drew Lawson) wrote:


Oh, it is quite clear. I get the standard form message from devnull
at whereever, telling me that I must have used prohibited words
(without telling me what they are) and that I can resubmit it if I
think there is an error. (I never crosspost.)

Every post.

I suspect that it is objecting to somethnig (still no guesses as
to what) in the message headers. I'd wondered if it hated my domain
name, but your post quotes that, so it probably isn't the issue.

I know enough about Usenet to work around this, but I dislike doing
so. So I usually just don't post. I don't like that solution, as
I plan on putting a pond in this spring and may have design questions
over the winter.

I don't know what the problem is, but if it is the software we'll
probably need some more info if we are going to help the author
correct it. On a personal note, I wish the software had the ability
to tell exactly why a post is automatically rejected. I know that is
technically possible, but is a fair amount of coding work. It would
indeed be nice if there were a bunch of competing software packages
and hosting possibilities to choose from, but that is not the case.

...

In article
Kurt writes:

My question would be, just how bad could an unmoderated board for ponds
be?

Surprisingly bad.

It's not political, religious or controversial, and aside from bulk
spam or the occasional flamer, I don't see the value of a omderated
board except to be a lot of work for someone.

I'm not sure anymore who were villians and who were victims in
rec.ponds, but suffice it to say that some people have a lot of
energy for making trouble, or for making sure that others' fun is
ruined.

I subscribe to about 20
Usenet groups, and none of them are moderated. They manage to do fine.
Most everyone knows how to use a killfile, anyway.

Killfiles are of much less use when there is a problem with forged
posting addresses. That was going on, as was some pretending to
have been forged, etc.



--
Drew Lawson And I know there's more to the story
I know I need to see more
I need to see s'more, hear s'more
feel s'more. I gotta be s'more

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:32:33 CST, Chris Barnes
wrote:

...

I didn't quote anything, I just wanted Chris to email me. I've been
rejected as spam every time I try to email you.
--
Galen Hekhuis
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"Kurt" wrote:



My question would be, just how bad could an unmoderated board for ponds
be? It's not political, religious or controversial, and aside from bulk
spam or the occasional flamer, I don't see the value of a omderated
board except to be a lot of work for someone. I subscribe to about 20
Usenet groups, and none of them are moderated. They manage to do fine.
Most everyone knows how to use a killfile, anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

Wow. For a preview, drop in over at rec.ponds. It used to be worse.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Koi, Goldfish, and RES named Colombo.