Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:145 news.groups:2797
Path: utzoo!yunexus!spectrix!clewis
From: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,news.groups
Subject: Re: This newsgroup invalid?
Message-ID: <498@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: 9 Mar 88 18:01:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: spectrix.498
Posted: Wed Mar  9 13:01:24 1988
References: <470@stech.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis)
Organization: Spectrix Microsystems Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 53

In article <470@stech.UUCP> sysop@stech.UUCP (Jan Harrington) writes:
>As the administrator of a news system, I just got one of those messages
>from "uucp" telling me about which newsgroups were invalid and ought to
>be removed from my active file.  One of the listed groups was
>comp.sys.mac.programmer.  Now, I know that the group was at first created
>illegally, and that particular group was removed.  However, to the best
>of my knowledge, the group was recreated later, after the full time
>period for voting had elapsed.
>
>What's up folks? Are the messages about changes in the active file that
>much out of date?  Has something happened to change the current status
>of comp.sys.mac.programmer?  And if not, should I trust those messages
>about changes in the active file in the future?

We got four checkgroups messages:

	From: news@otter.UUCP (news daemon)
	Newsgroups: news.admin.ctl,control
	Subject: checkgroups
	Message-ID: <8960@otter.UUCP>
	Date: 6 Mar 88 15:03:21 GMT
	Control: checkgroups
	Organization: GenRad, Inc., Bolton, Mass.
	Lines: 321
	Approved: spaf@cs.purdue.edu

Two from condor, two from otter.  Hey, wait a minute!  What's Spaf doing at 
GenRad?  :-)  Note that condor and otter are both GenRad sites, with the 
*same* SA.

Well, my assumption is that the SA at GenRad was trying to run a checkgroups
(possibly on an internal net of USENET-supporting machines) and figgered that 
it had to be posted to news.admin, and since that is moderated, he was
going to have to fool the software with the Approved: line.  AND, he
gave it a big enough distribution (eg: none, but "news" top-level name) to 
escape their sites.

Presumably, the escape was unintentional.

Thus, it was not an "official" checkgroups.  Besides, Spaf doesn't post
real checkgroups anymore either - he makes one up, posts it, but in such
a way that the SA had to snag it, rewrap slightly, THEN run it.  Sigh.
(I promise to get around to implementing a version of checkgroups that
doesn't complain about inet groups one of these days!)

The SA should have done the checkgroups logged in from root or news
to newsgroup "control" (or any local group - we some times use "general").  
Then the forgery would not have been necessary, nor would it have escaped to
bug the rest of us.
-- 
Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc,
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc, yunexus}!spectrix!clewis
Phone: (416)-474-1955