Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Ed Mullen, 2008/08/22 9:43 PM:
>> Why the "snip, snip"? Reading this post I can only get a vague idea
>> what has come before. Very annoying not having the full context.
>> Stop forcing me to go back and re-read previous posts. Besides, you
>> have no idea if they are even available or if they've expired when I
>> read this.
>
> He is following the Mozilla Forum Etiquette
>
>
> Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are
> replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context. Remember
> that if someone wants to read the original message, they can; it is
> easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is, don't include more
> quoted text than new text.
> http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
>
> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly scroll
> through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.
I wonder who wrote the 'it is easily available' part. Not someone using
TB, surely, as getting back old messages is NOT easy if you are not set
up to retain all of them on your HD.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Ed Mullen, 2008/08/22 9:43 PM:
>>> Why the "snip, snip"? Reading this post I can only get a vague idea
>>> what has come before. Very annoying not having the full context.
>>> Stop forcing me to go back and re-read previous posts. Besides, you
>>> have no idea if they are even available or if they've expired when I
>>> read this.
>>
>> He is following the Mozilla Forum Etiquette
>>
>>
>> Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are
>> replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context. Remember
>> that if someone wants to read the original message, they can; it is
>> easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is, don't include more
>> quoted text than new text.
>> http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
>>
>> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly scroll
>> through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.
> I wonder who wrote the 'it is easily available' part. Not someone using
> TB, surely, as getting back old messages is NOT easy if you are not set
> up to retain all of them on your HD.
>
>

Ron, I used to download all the messages on the various Moz NG's that I
frequent, but now I find that be setting my SM to View Threads All I can
see any messages I may already read/marked as read.

Daniel

*-* On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, at 02:20:13 -0500,
*-* In Article WdadnR84qeezJzLVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@mozilla.org,
*-* Ron Hunter wrote
*-* About Re: spam increasing in mozilla.* newsgroups

> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Ed Mullen, 2008/08/22 9:43 PM:
>>> Why the "snip, snip"? Reading this post I can only get a vague
>>> idea what has come before. Very annoying not having the full
>>> context. Stop forcing me to go back and re-read previous posts.
>>> Besides, you have no idea if they are even available or if they've
>>> expired when I read this.

>> He is following the Mozilla Forum Etiquette
>>

>> Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are
>> replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context.
>> Remember that if someone wants to read the original message,
>> they can; it is easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is,
>> don't include more quoted text than new text.
>> http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html

>> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly
>> scroll through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.
> I wonder who wrote the 'it is easily available' part. Not someone
> using TB, surely, as getting back old messages is NOT easy if you
> are not set up to retain all of them on your HD.

Tools --> Account Settings --> [News account] --> Offline & Disk Space

"To recover disk space, old messages can be permanently deleted"

Select "Don't delete any messages" and unselect all other options.

Set up that way, I have access to all posts *on the server* in the
groups I'm subscribed to, using TB. Admittedly, it's probably a
configuration that not many people use, but it *is* possible.

Ken Whiton

FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:31:43 -0700, 1PW wrote:

> The more I read, the more interesting this becomes! Would the use of
> cancel bots still work for offensive posts of a "one-time" nature
> where the poster individually authored each post?

Woah! I'm not really talking about offensive postings. Canceling those
would be subjective since one person can find a certain posting
offensive while another one thinks it's not offensive.

I think the bots at nl.* filter on binaries and HTML, perhaps also on
spam. Since they're bound by rules, they can't make subjective decisions
(like human moderators). In case of spam, there could be false positives
though...

> IMHO it appears as this newsgroup is unmoderated as I'm seeing my own
> posts show up within two seconds or so. Please DO expand on what you
> think!

I'm all for an unmoderated Usenet since I perfectly capable of using
filters myself. But bots could help out filtering binaries, HTML and
spam on text newsgroups.

--
s|b

s|b wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:31:43 -0700, 1PW wrote:
>
>> The more I read, the more interesting this becomes! Would the use of
>> cancel bots still work for offensive posts of a "one-time" nature
>> where the poster individually authored each post?
>
> Woah! I'm not really talking about offensive postings. Canceling those
> would be subjective since one person can find a certain posting
> offensive while another one thinks it's not offensive.
>
> I think the bots at nl.* filter on binaries and HTML, perhaps also on
> spam. Since they're bound by rules, they can't make subjective decisions
> (like human moderators). In case of spam, there could be false positives
> though...
>
>> IMHO it appears as this newsgroup is unmoderated as I'm seeing my own
>> posts show up within two seconds or so. Please DO expand on what you
>> think!
>
> I'm all for an unmoderated Usenet since I perfectly capable of using
> filters myself. But bots could help out filtering binaries, HTML and
> spam on text newsgroups.
>

Hmmm, I use the net for increasing my music library with Gnutella and
OpenFT, is that a crime ? ;-)



--
GJ

s|b wrote:

> Woah! I'm not really talking about offensive postings. Canceling those
> would be subjective since one person can find a certain posting
> offensive while another one thinks it's not offensive.

but the offensiveness does happen, and it can get
really offensive reading all those posts from people
saying its offensive. :-)

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

GerardJan wrote:
> s|b wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:31:43 -0700, 1PW wrote:
>>
>>> The more I read, the more interesting this becomes! Would the use of
>>> cancel bots still work for offensive posts of a "one-time" nature
>>> where the poster individually authored each post?
>>
>> Woah! I'm not really talking about offensive postings. Canceling those
>> would be subjective since one person can find a certain posting
>> offensive while another one thinks it's not offensive.
>>
>> I think the bots at nl.* filter on binaries and HTML, perhaps also on
>> spam. Since they're bound by rules, they can't make subjective decisions
>> (like human moderators). In case of spam, there could be false positives
>> though...
>>
>>> IMHO it appears as this newsgroup is unmoderated as I'm seeing my own
>>> posts show up within two seconds or so. Please DO expand on what you
>>> think!
>>
>> I'm all for an unmoderated Usenet since I perfectly capable of using
>> filters myself. But bots could help out filtering binaries, HTML and
>> spam on text newsgroups.
>>
>
> Hmmm, I use the net for increasing my music library with Gnutella and
> OpenFT, is that a crime ? ;-)

downloading -- no. Uploading -- yes!

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

1PW wrote:
> On 08/22/2008 12:00 PM, Myk Melez sent:
>>
>> There has been a significant increase in spam in the mozilla.*
>> newsgroups lately. Some low-traffic groups, like mozilla.dev.tech.xslt,
>> are mostly spam these days.
>>
>> The last time spam got out of hand, community members stopped using the
>> newsgroups en masse, causing significant disruption to the flow of
>> community discussion, and it took a long time (plus a new newsgroup
>> provider and a newsgroup reorg) to get folks back to them.
>>
>> Can something be done to combat this latest wave?
>>
>> -myk
>>
>> (posted to mozilla.general because I don't see any other applicable
>> newsgroup for issues like this, but please redirect as appropriate)
>
> Hello myk:
>
> Without really thinking this through, all I can think of is using a
> moderator. I wonder if anyone has ever tried writing an application
> to lighten the load on a human moderator? Otherwise it takes the
> efforts of very dedicated folks to keep it going.
>
> My $0.02USD...
>
We have moderators. Moderators or lack there of is not the problem

there are only 3 methods to stem the flow of Spam

1. Mozilla should get the dough together and buy their own server
equipment for the groups and some people to look after it, some pro's if
you will.

2. Use a Secure Server similar to the old colabara Server the used on
secnews.netscape.com In the years I was on that server from the time it
was created until today. I've seen three pieces of spam and that was
accidentally forwarded by users.
3 Use an authentication system like news.annexcafe.com It requires you
to sign up submit a Username and Password for approval. I've been a user
of annexcafe almost as long as sec.news.netscape.com, and I've seen
*ZERO* spam since being on it.

I don't expect any of it to happen, though.

And I am sure someone will come along and try to make me look like a an
a-hole and give reasons for them being stupid or silly. :-(


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1PW wrote:
> On 08/22/2008 12:59 PM, Gus Richter sent:
>
> Snip, snip...
>
>>
>> Well, my 2cents is that using a moderator is the worst of all choices. I
>> present the destructive result of MTMM as an example; result will be no
>> spam and no group attendees.
>>
>> My suggestion is for Mozilla to get their own server and have their own
>> control (without a moderator) just as it used to be (news and secnews).
>>
>
> Hello Gus:
>
> Perhaps a group of folks who have volunteered as moderators fits better?
> I'm too ill equipped to weigh in on this. What is MTMM? I have traced
> the origins of our postings back to a mozilla.org server. Is that what
> you meant? When you say you'd like to see Mozilla have their own
> control, how would that differ from being without a moderator? How did
> news and secnews work that made it better?
>
> Again I'm writing with great ignorance. I love this dialog! Please do
> speak your mind Gus.
>
> Respectfully - Thank you kindly sir.
>
> Pete
>
On secnews.netscape.com its called Netscape Test Multimedia its a group
dedicated learning how to create and send audio, video , and video
affect in html.

When originally created in Mozilla the name became mozilla.test.Multimedia.

But unlike Netscape which encourage nurturing those abilities and
learning those abilities. Mozilla head people are people stuck in the
Dark ages and would if they could ban or disallow anything other than
Plain text. I get the distinct impression that they would all prefer
text only websites. In any event any even the moderator decide to
crackdown on the use of the group, only to see if such a media or audio
type can work on SM/TB/FF, if you stray the least bit you'll be banned
for doing so.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> We have moderators. Moderators or lack there of is not the problem
>
> there are only 3 methods to stem the flow of Spam
>
> 1. Mozilla should get the dough together and buy their own server
> equipment for the groups and some people to look after it, some pro's if
> you will.

good idea

> 2. Use a Secure Server similar to the old colabara Server the used on
> secnews.netscape.com In the years I was on that server from the time it
> was created until today. I've seen three pieces of spam and that was
> accidentally forwarded by users.

good idea

> 3 Use an authentication system like news.annexcafe.com It requires you
> to sign up submit a Username and Password for approval. I've been a user
> of annexcafe almost as long as sec.news.netscape.com, and I've seen
> *ZERO* spam since being on it.

sort of a good idea, but that will give the moderator
the power to ban people at his whim, and without just
cause. And the powers to be will support that
decission regardless of what anyone says. Then they
will lie about changing things. Look what happened in
the mtmm group and with the new group that they're
supposed to have created.

> I don't expect any of it to happen, though.
>
> And I am sure someone will come along and try to make me look like a an
> a-hole and give reasons for them being stupid or silly. :-(
>
>


--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Larry Gusaas wrote:
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, 2008/08/22 4:17 PM:
>> 1PW wrote:
>>> On 08/22/2008 12:00 PM, Myk Melez sent:
>>>> There has been a significant increase in spam in the mozilla.*
>>>> newsgroups lately. Some low-traffic groups, like
>>>> mozilla.dev.tech.xslt,
>>>> are mostly spam these days.
>>>>
>>>> The last time spam got out of hand, community members stopped using the
>>>> newsgroups en masse, causing significant disruption to the flow of
>>>> community discussion, and it took a long time (plus a new newsgroup
>>>> provider and a newsgroup reorg) to get folks back to them.
>>>>
>>>> Can something be done to combat this latest wave?
>>>>
>>>> -myk
>>>>
>>>> (posted to mozilla.general because I don't see any other applicable
>>>> newsgroup for issues like this, but please redirect as appropriate)
>>>
>>> Hello myk:
>>>
>>> Without really thinking this through, all I can think of is using a
>>> moderator. I wonder if anyone has ever tried writing an application
>>> to lighten the load on a human moderator? Otherwise it takes the
>>> efforts of very dedicated folks to keep it going.
>>>
>>> My $0.02USD...
>>>
>>
>> Mozilla does have 3 moderators. I call them the Mozilla Bullies. The
>> head bully is one of the most hated individuals within these groups.
>> There used to be 4 moderators, but one of them quit because of the
>> stupid tatics the Head Bully would play.
>
> They are only hated by a few malcontents who continually refuse to play
> by the newsgroups rules.
>

They actually have reason to. They (moderators) changed the intent, tone
and tenor of the group. because one person used something he wasn't
aware he wasn't supposed to. Then a battle ensued. Finally as a
punishment to that individual the moderator changed the rules, which
punishes everyone. So now if the group is used its under extremely
strict guidelines. You can even get in trouble posting a reply that such
item worked for you. So now the groups gets little if any use.

Odds are when there are not post at all for so long a time the group
will be taken down and everyone but the users will be happy.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1PW wrote:
> On 08/22/2008 03:13 PM, s|b sent:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:00:58 -0700, Myk Melez wrote:
>>
>>> Can something be done to combat this latest wave?
>>
>> Why don't they just use cancel bots? They're not subjective and do as
>> they're told. (If I'm not mistaken there are some cancel bots active in
>> the nl.* hierarchy.)
>>
>
> Hello s|b:
>
> The more I read, the more interesting this becomes! Would the use of
> cancel bots still work for offensive posts of a "one-time" nature
> where the poster individually authored each post? It also seems that
> the offensive posters change their identities frequently, and their
> message headers reveal little.
>
> I just trolled with a Google search and it's fascinating but appears to
> be quite difficult to implement.
>
> IMHO it appears as this newsgroup is unmoderated as I'm seeing my own
> posts show up within two seconds or so. Please DO expand on what you
> think!
>
> Thank you!
>
> Pete
>

This group is Moderated but because its general in nature; people are
allowed much freedom in what they say. Its not strictly moderated.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 22.08.2008 17:12, 1PW wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 08/22/2008 12:59 PM, Gus Richter sent:
>>
>> Snip, snip...
>>
>>>
>>> Well, my 2cents is that using a moderator is the worst of all choices. I
>>> present the destructive result of MTMM as an example; result will be no
>>> spam and no group attendees.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is for Mozilla to get their own server and have their own
>>> control (without a moderator) just as it used to be (news and secnews).
>>>
>>
>> Hello Gus:
>>
>> Perhaps a group of folks who have volunteered as moderators fits better?
>> I'm too ill equipped to weigh in on this. What is MTMM? I have traced
>> the origins of our postings back to a mozilla.org server. Is that what
>> you meant? When you say you'd like to see Mozilla have their own
>> control, how would that differ from being without a moderator? How did
>> news and secnews work that made it better?
>>
>> Again I'm writing with great ignorance. I love this dialog! Please do
>> speak your mind Gus.
>>
>> Respectfully - Thank you kindly sir.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>
> Moderation just doesn't work in a support venue. I say this from a
> decade+ of experience with Netscape support, etc.
>
There should be some form of moderation. But only to moderate severe
abuse only.

I think an occasional Off topic comment about a subject say to lighten
the mood poke mild fun if its not abused should be tolerated.

So use of this general group I suppose is a good thing.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>> Ed Mullen, 2008/08/22 9:43 PM:
>>> Why the "snip, snip"? Reading this post I can only get a vague idea
>>> what has come before. Very annoying not having the full context.
>>> Stop forcing me to go back and re-read previous posts. Besides, you
>>> have no idea if they are even available or if they've expired when I
>>> read this.
>>
>> He is following the Mozilla Forum Etiquette
>>
>>
>> Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are
>> replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context. Remember
>> that if someone wants to read the original message, they can; it is
>> easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is, don't include more
>> quoted text than new text.
>> http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
>>
>> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly scroll
>> through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.
> I wonder who wrote the 'it is easily available' part. Not someone using
> TB, surely, as getting back old messages is NOT easy if you are not set
> up to retain all of them on your HD.
>
>
Same here for seamonkey.

I have mine set (SM and TB) not to retain header older than two days old.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 08/23/2008 02:50 AM, Ken Whiton sent:
> *-* On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, at 02:20:13 -0500,
> *-* In Article WdadnR84qeezJzLVnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@mozilla.org,
> *-* Ron Hunter wrote
> *-* About Re: spam increasing in mozilla.* newsgroups
>
>> Larry Gusaas wrote:
>>> Ed Mullen, 2008/08/22 9:43 PM:
>>>> Why the "snip, snip"? Reading this post I can only get a vague
>>>> idea what has come before. Very annoying not having the full
>>>> context. Stop forcing me to go back and re-read previous posts.
>>>> Besides, you have no idea if they are even available or if they've
>>>> expired when I read this.
>
>>> He is following the Mozilla Forum Etiquette
>>>
>
>>> Do not quote the entire content of the message to which you are
>>> replying. Include only as much as is necessary for context.
>>> Remember that if someone wants to read the original message,
>>> they can; it is easily accessible. A good rule of thumb is,
>>> don't include more quoted text than new text.
>>> http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
>
>>> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly
>>> scroll through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.
>> I wonder who wrote the 'it is easily available' part. Not someone
>> using TB, surely, as getting back old messages is NOT easy if you
>> are not set up to retain all of them on your HD.
>
> Tools --> Account Settings --> [News account] --> Offline & Disk Space
>
> "To recover disk space, old messages can be permanently deleted"
>
> Select "Don't delete any messages" and unselect all other options.
>
> Set up that way, I have access to all posts *on the server* in the
> groups I'm subscribed to, using TB. Admittedly, it's probably a
> configuration that not many people use, but it *is* possible.
>
> Ken Whiton
>
> FIDO: 1:132/152
> InterNet: kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)

I am the poster who had been snipping. In the eyes of at least one
newsgroup reader, I had snipped too much or perhaps my snipping in the
slightest was objectionable. This area alone is controversial!

This thread, as I hope, is trying to address the increase in spam. But,
a clear definition of spam, just in these Mozilla newsgroups, is not so
easy to define. Any attempt to limit posting, to Mozilla matters, comes
close to offending the free speech rights of many. Others are dismayed
at the commercialism and off topic material that would have many wishing
for solutions.

I have been asking for the wisdom of others, that would begin to correct
the very worst of some of the postings we might all agree on. A post in
this, or a subsequent thread, suggests blocking gmail. It's easy to see
how this can both help and offend others while possibly causing new
problems.

Does a president exist where a server, operated like Mozilla does, has
blocked gmail originated postings? Is this OK with users, whose primary
purpose is to enjoy our peer-to-peer community? Does selective blocking
pose a legal threat to Mozilla? Does a better server solution exist?
Are other reasonable solutions available, that may be applied at the
server level? Would Mozilla agree to implement a blocking type solution
at the server level? Is selective blocking what's best for our
community as a whole?

Most of us are familiar with the filtering capabilities in most of our
newsreaders. We're trying to have an effect (or not) on postings before
they get to us.

So. Where are we? Where do we go from here?

I'm neither an ultra conservative nor ultra liberal on this subject.
I'm only trying to keep a dialog going that will attract good ideas.

Pete

--
1PW

@?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

On 08/23/2008 08:56 AM, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T sent:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 22.08.2008 17:12, 1PW wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 08/22/2008 12:59 PM, Gus Richter sent:
>>>
>>> Snip, snip...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, my 2cents is that using a moderator is the worst of all
>>>> choices. I
>>>> present the destructive result of MTMM as an example; result will
>>>> be no
>>>> spam and no group attendees.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is for Mozilla to get their own server and have their own
>>>> control (without a moderator) just as it used to be (news and secnews).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Gus:
>>>
>>> Perhaps a group of folks who have volunteered as moderators fits better?
>>> I'm too ill equipped to weigh in on this. What is MTMM? I have traced
>>> the origins of our postings back to a mozilla.org server. Is that what
>>> you meant? When you say you'd like to see Mozilla have their own
>>> control, how would that differ from being without a moderator? How did
>>> news and secnews work that made it better?
>>>
>>> Again I'm writing with great ignorance. I love this dialog! Please do
>>> speak your mind Gus.
>>>
>>> Respectfully - Thank you kindly sir.
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>
>> Moderation just doesn't work in a support venue. I say this from a
>> decade+ of experience with Netscape support, etc.
>>
> There should be some form of moderation. But only to moderate severe
> abuse only.
>
> I think an occasional Off topic comment about a subject say to lighten
> the mood poke mild fun if its not abused should be tolerated.

Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! My heart is yours!

>
> So use of this general group I suppose is a good thing.
>


--
1PW

@?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> 1PW wrote:
>> On 08/22/2008 12:00 PM, Myk Melez sent:
>>>
>>> There has been a significant increase in spam in the mozilla.*
>>> newsgroups lately. Some low-traffic groups, like mozilla.dev.tech.xslt,
>>> are mostly spam these days.
>>>
>>> The last time spam got out of hand, community members stopped using the
>>> newsgroups en masse, causing significant disruption to the flow of
>>> community discussion, and it took a long time (plus a new newsgroup
>>> provider and a newsgroup reorg) to get folks back to them.
>>>
>>> Can something be done to combat this latest wave?
>>>
>>> -myk
>>>
>>> (posted to mozilla.general because I don't see any other applicable
>>> newsgroup for issues like this, but please redirect as appropriate)
>>
>> Hello myk:
>>
>> Without really thinking this through, all I can think of is using a
>> moderator. I wonder if anyone has ever tried writing an application
>> to lighten the load on a human moderator? Otherwise it takes the
>> efforts of very dedicated folks to keep it going.
>>
>> My $0.02USD...
>>
> We have moderators. Moderators or lack there of is not the problem
>
> there are only 3 methods to stem the flow of Spam
>
> 1. Mozilla should get the dough together and buy their own server
> equipment for the groups and some people to look after it, some pro's if
> you will.
>
> 2. Use a Secure Server similar to the old colabara Server the used on
> secnews.netscape.com In the years I was on that server from the time it
> was created until today. I've seen three pieces of spam and that was
> accidentally forwarded by users.
> 3 Use an authentication system like news.annexcafe.com It requires you
> to sign up submit a Username and Password for approval. I've been a user
> of annexcafe almost as long as sec.news.netscape.com, and I've seen
> *ZERO* spam since being on it.
>
> I don't expect any of it to happen, though.
>
> And I am sure someone will come along and try to make me look like a an
> a-hole and give reasons for them being stupid or silly. :-(
>
>

The best thing is to post the netetiquette from time to time,
programmers and other scientists are sometimes not aware of it...
In the past (say 25yrs ago) there was a netetiquette what said that in
"news* you should do top listing as answer and in newsletters
downlisting... these etiquettes are there for a long time and if people
refuse to read them then tell him/her the truth about how to act... that
is exactly what happens in this newsgroup and I like that.

--
GJ

1PW wrote:
> I am the poster who had been snipping. In the eyes of at least one
> newsgroup reader, I had snipped too much or perhaps my snipping in the
> slightest was objectionable. This area alone is controversial!

you'll always get someone complaining about some aspect
of snipping -- its either too much or its not enough.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

Larry Gusaas writes:

> Far too many people do not follow this causing one to endlessly scroll
> through previous post to see a pointless one line comment.

I agree.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

--
Carl

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------

> sort of a good idea, but that will give the moderator
> the power to ban people at his whim, and without just
> cause. And the powers to be will support that
> decision regardless of what anyone says. Then they
> will lie about changing things. Look what happened in
> the mtmm group and with the new group that they're
> supposed to have created.

That true.

but annexcafe uses a system I believe is semi automatic in that you go
to a group and request to get on then your sent to a web page to fill
out the info. Then it send a query to the mail address that you have to
answer. Then and only then do you receive permission to use the
authenticated username and password to get in. They use some type of
software that looks for certain patterns to pickup spambots and rejects
them

>> I don't expect any of it to happen, though.
>>
>> And I am sure someone will come along and try to make me look like a an
>> a-hole and give reasons for them being stupid or silly. :-(
>>
>>
>
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9, 1.5GB Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 GHz, 2 GB OSX.4.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------