Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!bellcore!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: I'm learning why nobody likes mod groups (NOT unreliable mail)
Message-ID: <863@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 16:56:29 EST
Article-I.D.: vortex.863
Posted: Sun Dec  8 16:56:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 03:20:31 EST
References: <267@omen.UUCP>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 44

Chuck's idea of having the moderators provide direct UUCP logins
is not a very desirable one (see the second part of this message).
It is also unnecessary.

First of all, uucp mail is generally NOT unreliable.  The problem 
with moderated groups is that there is no generally available
central repository of addresses to reach the moderators, so many people
tend to guess about addresses.  Rather than try insist that people run
the "latest and greatest" (and probably buggy) netnews software at
any given time, it might be far better to assign FIXED addresses
at certain well-placed nodes for moderated traffic.  If the nodes
were in major backbone positions, additional delay would
be negligible or total delay might even be reduced.  So if people
knew to post to mod.foo they ALWAYS sent mail to:

majorsite!mod-foo

and knew that site would forward that message on to the moderator
of record for that group, things would be greatly simplified.  So
long as total moderated traffic stays within some limits, additional
load on the sites providing this service might be pretty low, since
such backbones are already carrying so much netnews traffic anyway.
In other words, the relative increase in traffic for those sites
might be quite small (they'd only have to forward one particular copy of 
the message onward, after all).  If this encouraged more use of moderated
groups, then overall netnews traffic would drop and the sites providing
the service would be winners in the longer run, with overall REDUCED
load.

----

Regarding the publication of direct UUCP login info:

I have long spoken out against the use of "multiple-access" UUCP
login accounts.  While some sites feel that having one open account
for everyone to call simplifies administration, it also provides
an easy gateway for forged messages, misuse of resources, and just
generally is a poor idea from a security standpoint.  Sites with
a real interest in security have separate accounts
for each site calling, so that they have some chance to track
down problems and keep their site secure.

--Lauren--