Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:5563 comp.sources.d:6033 comp.unix.questions:27275 news.sysadmin:3409 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!autodesk!melange!abeals From: abeals@autodesk.com (Plu festu, uloj) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.sources.d,comp.unix.questions,news.sysadmin Subject: Re: "peer review" style of moderation Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 90 18:40:24 GMT References: <1990Nov24.163906.19793@chinet.chi.il.us> <971@iiasa.UUCP> <1990Nov28.170948.11146@sceard.Sceard.COM> <1990Nov30.022320.6793@ico.isc.com> Sender: news@Autodesk.COM Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp Lines: 33 Dick Dunn talks about a "reviewer" strategy to help out moderators. Good idea, but still has a single point of failure. A better way would be to have multiple moderators - each moderator gets a copy of each submission. If the moderator thinks it's worth sending out, s/he drops a copy onto the newsgroup ****using a modified copy of the original message-id**** [<- yo, important point there]. You might ask "What does this buy us? Multiple copies of messages in the newsgroup?" By using a *modified copy* of the original message-id, for example, if the original message-id of the submission mail message was "<123456@mintaka.bedford.com>", the modified message-id of the posted message would be something like "". Thus, if multiple moderators posted the same message, the news software would reject the posting as a duplicate, as it would already have a message by that message-id in its history database. What this means is that if two moderators send out a copy of the same source posting, some folks will see the posting as coming from one moderator [and set of paths] and others will see it as coming from a different moderator, by a different route. In this scheme, so long as all the moderators don't get sick or go on vacation at once, someone will take up the slack and postings will continue to appear. Simple, neat, elegant. -- Andrew Scott Beals abeals@autodesk.com