Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wyse!mips!prls!pyramid!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: How can a moderator take a vacation? (Re: comp.sources.unix)
Message-ID: <204@twwells.uucp>
Date: 24 Nov 88 07:32:56 GMT
References: <184@twwells.uucp> <7681@well.UUCP> <200@twwells.uucp> <1326@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 63

In article <1326@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes:
: HOWEVER, it IS a convenience and not a necessity.  We need to evaluate
: the relative cost of short UNMODERATED periods of an otherwise
: moderated group.
:
: DISADVANTAGES:
:    -  (Perhaps biggest problem) Programs would probably be posted
:       whose format is in conflict with what's expected by
:       somebody's archiving software.  (Is this fear real?)

Yes. For certain groups, there is a problem with sequencing:
comp.sources.stuff has these posting numbers, there is no guarantee
that posters will manage to get these right. This would make life
more than a little difficult for those who archive the newsgroups.

For comp.archives, the newsgroup I moderate, there are two kinds of
postings, which are distinguished by their subject lines. I could set
up a mail reflector for the discussion postings, and have the program
put aside the other postings, which are supposed to be specially
formatted.

It would be possible to set up a program that verifies the other
postings and posts them (or sends them back) after verification, but
this begins to get complicated.

:    -  Without discipline, some discussion will appear in a program group.

Some? :-) Seriously though, some discussion would have to take place
*somewhere*.  There may not always be an appropriate place. And any
newcomer is going to have to post some questions in the newsgroup
just to find out where the appropriate place is for the discussions.

:    -  (Unlikely paranoia) Unprincipled posters will take the opportunity
:       to post a trojan horse or virus.

This is a yes&no. It is trivial for anyone who wants to to post
bogusly to a moderated newsgroup; the practice of serializing the
postings makes this a little difficult, but certainly not impossible.

:                                         (Only matters in those groups
:       where the moderator does extensive testing.  Do such groups
:       exist?)

On the other hand, the moderators are in a position to determine
*who* submitted the code; this helps to discourage people from
submitting compromised code. Were I running a code newsgroup, I'd
check out the *person* who submitted any code that I couldn't verify
to be clean.

: Am I naive?  What other pros and cons are there?

Well, for me, the problem is that I couldn't set up a mail reflector
and be sure that it would continue while I was away.  I don't know if
any other moderators are also their system's administrator. If any
are, they are in the same boat as I am.

And if I didn't set up a mail reflector, the specially formatted
postings wouldn't get any verification. This would be a disaster,
something on the order of posting garbage to comp.mail.maps.

---
Bill
{uunet|novavax}!proxftl!twwells!bill