Gail Futoran wrote:


I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual what
they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting online
to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink posting
online, and I'd rather not do that.


As you can see I also use a munged address to post and for the exact
same reasons as you - in the main it works - occassionally I take a look
on the pop3 server to see what gets sent to this address and it is quite
horrendous....but on the otherhand the Moderators need to be able to
return a post to someone for editing if deemed necessary so some sort of
policy on the use of real, munged (but decipherable) or fake email
addresses.....I suppose a contentious post that comes to the attention
of the moderators but without any traceable email would just have to be
removed without giving the poster the option of amendment....but it
would need to be clear in the charter that this would happen....then
those using fake addresses would know exactly where they stand and that
without a valid email address there could not be any appeal on a
moderated post....

Just wittering....role on the publication of the RFD :-)

Gill

Gail Futoran wrote:

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

Damn. I hadn't thought about that one. However,...

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual
what they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to
be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting
online to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink
posting online, and I'd rather not do that.

Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.
--
derek

I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....

I know my fellow moderators want to go very light on the mod stuff. I had
to de-plonk some when I discovered this on-topic thread. ;-) I can't wait
to find one of those "magic" markers and start writing CULL on my fish for
the Kingfisher to know what to take. LOL!!!!! And yes, if I was being the
judge that would have gone thru, and I bet all the other mods would agree
w/me. ~ jan

pond w/culls

Locally we had a lady who was a birder. When she found out that heron would
come to backyard pond she was all about putting in a pond just for that
reason. Stocked with goldfish. I call this advance bird feeding, just like
when a hawk is sitting on my railing next to the bird feeders. ;-) ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....


I know my fellow moderators want to go very light on the mod stuff. I had
to de-plonk some when I discovered this on-topic thread. ;-) I can't wait
to find one of those "magic" markers and start writing CULL on my fish for
the Kingfisher to know what to take. LOL!!!!! And yes, if I was being the
judge that would have gone thru, and I bet all the other mods would agree
w/me. ~ jan


So maybe these are keywords that should be included in any moderation
policy - cull, kill, shoot, capture, rid myself of, dispose etc. etc.

Gill

So maybe these are keywords that should be included in any moderation
policy - cull, kill, shoot, capture, rid myself of, dispose etc. etc.

Gill

I'm not sure I'm following, keywords for the automoderator to toss the
post? ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
So maybe these are keywords that should be included in any moderation
policy - cull, kill, shoot, capture, rid myself of, dispose etc. etc.

Gill


I'm not sure I'm following, keywords for the automoderator to toss the
post? ~ jan

No, keywords to refer the post for human moderation....none of these
keywords would necessarily mean that the post was off-topic on this
group....Keywords for robo-moderation are going to have to be very
comprehensive....and added to all the time...and there aren't too many
that couldn't be open to interpretation....you have your work cut out
I'm afraid....but perhaps at some point a group of non-moderators but
interested parties could help with the compiling of this list. Jayne's
suggestion about some of us working out some posts - valid, invalid,
flaming, on-topic, off-topic could help when developing this process
before going live....

Gill

No, keywords to refer the post for human moderation....none of these
keywords would necessarily mean that the post was off-topic on this
group....Keywords for robo-moderation are going to have to be very
comprehensive....and added to all the time...and there aren't too many
that couldn't be open to interpretation....you have your work cut out
I'm afraid....but perhaps at some point a group of non-moderators but
interested parties could help with the compiling of this list. Jayne's
suggestion about some of us working out some posts - valid, invalid,
flaming, on-topic, off-topic could help when developing this process
before going live....

Gill

Got it. :-) ~ jan

Derek Broughton wrote:


Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

I hadn't thought of that - email addies munged by the moderation
software sounds a good idea....I wonder how far this could be taken -
would it, for example, be possible for only the robo-moderation software
to know the "real addresses" of posters - so if a post is returned it
automatically unmungs the address without a human being ever having to
know the true address?

Just throwing out ideas here - don't even know if any software is out
there capable of doing this. Some people have a more protective stance
on their email addresses than others - and this in itself might put them
off a moderated group...or would the moderators feel that if they are
trusted enough to moderate the group they should be trusted to have all
the "real" email addresses of posters? Or would the munging be so
obvious that everyone could work out the address anyway? Or does any of
this matter to the average poster?

All food for thought....

Gill

For some reason or other I fail to grasp what is so darn hard about
using a valid email account like yahoo or hotmail. It would suffice
for the purpose at hand and it is indeed a valid email......I do not
think anyone is asking to make anyone give up their ISP's givenemail
addy, as that is kiind of strong actins especiallyin a forum where
emails can be harvested. Odds are there is no bots thats gonna un-mung
an email, but there are jerks that have nothng better to do than
un-mung a simple mung job, if given a reason.


On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:21:12 +0000, Gill Passman
wrote:

Derek Broughton wrote:


Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

I hadn't thought of that - email addies munged by the moderation
software sounds a good idea....I wonder how far this could be taken -
would it, for example, be possible for only the robo-moderation software
to know the "real addresses" of posters - so if a post is returned it
automatically unmungs the address without a human being ever having to
know the true address?

Just throwing out ideas here - don't even know if any software is out
there capable of doing this. Some people have a more protective stance
on their email addresses than others - and this in itself might put them
off a moderated group...or would the moderators feel that if they are
trusted enough to moderate the group they should be trusted to have all
the "real" email addresses of posters? Or would the munging be so
obvious that everyone could work out the address anyway? Or does any of
this matter to the average poster?

All food for thought....

Gill



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

Damn. I hadn't thought about that one. However,...

In a case like mine (and Ed Aston's) where the trolls use legitimate address
to impersonate their "targets" and/or post to porn sites and groups, there
is no way a legitimate address should have to be given. Isn't this part of
the reason for a moderated group - to avoid these things from continuing?
All those who appear to be moderators here have my legitimate e-mail
address.

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual
what they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to
be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting
online to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink
posting online, and I'd rather not do that.

Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

Why have the person's email address show at all? Surely the software can be
set to eliminate e-mail addresses or mung them to the point of being useless
to spam-bots and trolls.

--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Gill Passman wrote:

Derek Broughton wrote:


Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

I hadn't thought of that - email addies munged by the moderation
software sounds a good idea....I wonder how far this could be taken -
would it, for example, be possible for only the robo-moderation software
to know the "real addresses" of posters - so if a post is returned it
automatically unmungs the address without a human being ever having to
know the true address?

Not sure about that.

Just throwing out ideas here - don't even know if any software is out
there capable of doing this. Some people have a more protective stance
on their email addresses than others - and this in itself might put them
off a moderated group...or would the moderators feel that if they are
trusted enough to moderate the group they should be trusted to have all
the "real" email addresses of posters? Or would the munging be so
obvious that everyone could work out the address anyway? Or does any of
this matter to the average poster?

It might not matter to the average poster but it will matter to _some_
posters, and it _should_ matter to the moderators. It occurs to me that
privacy laws in many places actually require us to say exactly how we will
use (and protect - or not: in some places it's ok not to protect personal
information but the suppliers of that information need to know that is what
happens) these addresses.
--
derek

Zëbulon wrote:


"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...

Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

Why have the person's email address show at all? Surely the software can
be set to eliminate e-mail addresses or mung them to the point of being
useless to spam-bots and trolls.

I could have sworn I just said that...

There has to be _something_ in the address line, or it's not a valid news
message according to the RFC (I think - I could be wrong). It certainly
doesn't have to be usable. For the record, I was thinking of
converting 'Derek ' to 'Derek xxx@xxx'. Keeping the
alias used by the poster is convenient because most of us have software
that uses that for the salutation, and it's user selectable anyway, so if
you don't want your own name there it won't be.
--
derek

It only matters to folks with something to hide.
All folks weather they fuss, fued, dissagree and fight ar enot as mean
and vindictive as CArol and her supporters are, so a real email addy
means nothing. I have only gotten unsolicted emails from one of CArols
supporters on a routine basis but as to emails from others it jjst did
not happen. And don;'t say my email awas munged as it certainly had
been printe douyt in Black and While by carol and her suporters enough
of times for anyone that wanted to respond could have. It just did not
happen, only from vindictive slimey supporters that had no more morals
than Carol did. Now a lot of y umay have seen lots of munged and
forged headers portraying me and osme others, but most if not all were
in deed good fogeries by carol and her band of supporters.


On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:19:48 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

Gill Passman wrote:

Derek Broughton wrote:


Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

I hadn't thought of that - email addies munged by the moderation
software sounds a good idea....I wonder how far this could be taken -
would it, for example, be possible for only the robo-moderation software
to know the "real addresses" of posters - so if a post is returned it
automatically unmungs the address without a human being ever having to
know the true address?

Not sure about that.

Just throwing out ideas here - don't even know if any software is out
there capable of doing this. Some people have a more protective stance
on their email addresses than others - and this in itself might put them
off a moderated group...or would the moderators feel that if they are
trusted enough to moderate the group they should be trusted to have all
the "real" email addresses of posters? Or would the munging be so
obvious that everyone could work out the address anyway? Or does any of
this matter to the average poster?

It might not matter to the average poster but it will matter to _some_
posters, and it _should_ matter to the moderators. It occurs to me that
privacy laws in many places actually require us to say exactly how we will
use (and protect - or not: in some places it's ok not to protect personal
information but the suppliers of that information need to know that is what
happens) these addresses.



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:13:28 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:


"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

Damn. I hadn't thought about that one. However,...

In a case like mine (and Ed Aston's) where the trolls use legitimate address
to impersonate their "targets" and/or post to porn sites and groups, there
is no way a legitimate address should have to be given. Isn't this part of
the reason for a moderated group - to avoid these things from continuing?
All those who appear to be moderators here have my legitimate e-mail


Trust me Carol, you and your supporters email addys were in the so
called poprn grups long before anyone here snatched them up and placed
them there. Best check what Randy does for starters.
address.

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual
what they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to
be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting
online to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink
posting online, and I'd rather not do that.

Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.

Why have the person's email address show at all? Surely the software can be
set to eliminate e-mail addresses or mung them to the point of being useless
to spam-bots and trolls.

--
snip some crap


-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!