Path: utzoo!censor!dybbuk!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!mikros!mwtech!martin From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Semi-moderated newsgroups Message-ID: <475@mwtech.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 89 18:33:54 GMT References: <1989Nov19.223239.26100@algor2.algorists.com> <25684AE6.26256@ateng.com> Reply-To: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) Organization: MIKROS Systemware, Darmstadt/W-Germany Lines: 37 In article <25684AE6.26256@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler): >>Consider, as examples, comp.lang.c and comp.unix.wizards. >> >>[Proposed:] >>The interface has a list of authorities and passes all their stuff >>through, untouched and without delay or interaction with the >>moderator. Postings by others are dealt with by the moderator. I fear, this could invite some individuals to try themselves on forgery, so that they appear as 'authority'. You may argue, that someone who wants discussions on 'pronounciation' and 'how to tell a wizzard' does not have the knowledge to do forgery, but I allways watched, that the knowledge among the "bad guys" spreads fast and that there is more energy to reach a goal, if there is some kind of price to win. So, writing obsolete stuff to a news group might occur more often, if it is *not* as easy as now. The list of authorities can soon become worthless, if there is no way of having an 'reliable signature' (I have some public/private key scheme in mind?). >I like this idea. I'd read these groups more often if I knew that the >correct answers from Doug Gwyn, Guy Harris, Chris Torek, Henry Spencer, et [rest deleted] I fully agree. A future enhancement could be to automate the process of adding/deleting people from this 'authority' list by sending a 'rating' to the selection interface mentioned above (eg +3 for 'very useful' to -3 for 'very obsolete'). The 'rn'-programs could be modified to accept this rating after one has read an article (I said, *future* enhancement ...). There could also be some 'ageing', so that after some time disqualified people get qualified again and negative ratings might be discarded if they do not come from persons, who themselves have accumulated a certain amount af positive rating. But the point that is crucial in any case is the reliable signature.