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/ |

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.

...

Drew,

Thanks for the clarification about your problem. Galen is wiser than
most of us moderators about the details of posts. Could you send him
an entire rejected post so that we can check out what is getting you
bounced by the software?

Jim