Whiskers wrote:

..
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:uujaf3-dla.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
They aren't. They are. Problem making a choice? I'm "on" several NNTP
server because they are to where I submit my posts.

According to the article that I mention in my other post, the local server
(i.e., the one that you and I use, whichever one that is) is supposed to
send an e-mail notice to the moderator(s). If the moderator authorizes the
post, they can only authorize it for the NNTP server over which they wrest
control, so your post shows up on their server and then propagates from
there.

Okay, sounds plausible except that's not what looks like what happened when
I submitted a post to rec.food.cooking which the OP said is a moderated
group. The PATH header in my post shows that it started on my NNTP server
(InfoAve). I doubt moderators are using freebie and unreliable NNTP servers
as I did for submitting the post.
http://help.netscape.com/kb/corporate/19961001-12.html doesn't say but seems
to indicate that the moderator will actually send the authorization to allow
the post back to the local server (to which the post was submitted) so it
propagates from there. I suppose that would work, too. Since the local
server is collaborating with the moderators to send them an e-mail notice, I
suppose that local server would also accept authorization notices back from
those moderators.

Not from what I've read. I think you are being too literal. A moderated
server is one that complies with the RFD/CFV for the newsgroup to be a
moderated newsgroup. That's what led me to believe that there are servers
that don't bother to comply with the request for a group to be moderated;
i.e., they don't notice the moderator(s) and they don't honor authorizations
from the moderator(s) to allow a post. The article mentioned in my other
post *does* mention a moderator issuing the authorization to allow the post
to a moderated server. However, often many article omit definition sections
that eliminate confusion over just what is meant by a term.

And what or where would newsgroups be without servers? Nowhere. Newsgroups
are concepts that implement organization of posts and server are the
mechanism upon which that concept is implemented. Words are words and paper
is not words. Well, yeah, so what?

But obviously not every NNTP server would have a moderator for the group
that would have permission to post to that NNTP server. No moderator could
afford to subscribe to every NNTP server that exists in this world. "...
the moderator posts the article again ...". The message seems to be put on
hold so it was never posted in the first place. After the moderator decides
to allow the post, just WHERE does that authorization go, and just WHERE
does the original post first show up? One article makes it look like the
moderator's authorization will result in your allowed post showing up on
*their* "moderated server" and it propagates from there.

I tried testing that by posting to the rec.food.cooking group which the OP
said was a moderated group. My post appeared but the PATH header shows that
it originated on the NNTP server to which I posted (InfoAve), not on some
moderator's "moderated server" (which would also incur delay in my post
showing up on the local server that I used to submit the post). The
Netscape article doesn't say but seems to infer that the moderator's
authorization to allow the post goes back to the local server which sent the
e-mail notice to the moderator in the first place. That makes more sense.
Moderators can't be subscribing and have authorization to post on every NNTP
server that exist worldwide. But if the local server is collaborating with
the RFD/CFV that setup a newsgroup as moderated and sends off notices to
moderators then it will probably also accept the authorization notices back
from the moderators. That way the post shows up at the local server to
which it was originally posted and the moderator doesn't need to subscribe
or even access the local server (I suspect the authorizations also go back
to the local server via e-mail).

That's what I would suspect, too. If an operator of an NNTP server became a
rogue by not collaborating with all other NNTP providers then they simply
wouldn't bother feeding any posts to that rogue operator or accept any posts
from there, either. That's why I mentioned that there would need to be some
reciprocity between servers for moderation to work.

A Google search is proving ineffective in understanding the mechanics
involved in setting up and controlled a moderated newsgroup. Some are
focused on the moderator authorizing posts to an NNTP server over which they
wrest control. Both articles that I've mentioned state this: one says the
moderator authorizes to *their* "moderated server" and the Netscape article
says the tools the moderator uses to authorize the post must be on the NNTP
server to which the moderator has permission to use those tools.

"Vanguard" <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote in message
news:dvutbk$84p9$1@news3.infoave.net...

Okay, more info found. I visited the news.newusers.questions newsgroup
which is a moderated newsgroup. They apparently repost a message weekly
saying how the moderated group works.

"This newsgroup (news.newusers.questions) is a "moderated" newsgroup.
Your newsgroup software should automatically forward all postings via
e-mail to the moderation address, where they will be processed by software
and/or human inspection and then either posted or returned to the sender.

If your news server has configured news.newusers.questions properly as a
moderated newsgroup, your posting should *not* appear immediately in the
newsgroup (as you see it on your server). Most postings are posted
immediately by the moderation software, but they are actually posted on
the server where this software resides (in South Carolina, USA), and it
may take a few hours for the posting to "propagate" back to your own
server so you can see it."

"Your newsgroup software". Again with the muddy statements. Client or
server software? I don't remember seeing Outlook Express sending off an
e-mail when posting to a moderated group (but then I probably didn't know I
was in a moderated group if appending the ".mod[erated]" suffix is not
required).

This message reinforces the first article that I mentioned in another post
that says the moderator authorizes a post on THEIR server, not yours. So
you post, your local server (that is collaborating with the request for
moderation) sends off an e-mail to the moderators, and the moderators
authorize your post on their server, not yours, and your propagates outward
from their server. So, yes, there are "moderated servers" meaning those are
the ones to which the moderator has an account and can issue the admin
command to allow the message to get posted.

So maybe rec.food.cooking, the one that I used for testing, is not a
moderated group as the OP said. My post showed up immediately there and the
PATH shows that my post originated there rather than from the moderator's
server. Since I know that news.newusers.questions is a moderated group,
I'll test how posting works for that newsgroup (but I'll wait until I have a
non-frivilous question to test moderation).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

On 2006-03-23, Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote:
OK, if you insist on using 'on' in that manner.

snip

Let's stop right there - you need to learn how to read accurately, and do
your own research thoroughly - not relying on whatever someone might say
in a newsgroup ). You could save yourself a lot of typing and
pointless hypothesising!

The moderated group which "jw 1111" apparently included in a cross-post,
is rec.food.veg.cooking.

Choosing words such as 'wrest control' and 'censor' makes it pretty clear
that your agenda is antagonistic towards the concept of moderated
newsgroups. That won't get you any help in trying to find methods or
excuses for circumventing newsgroup moderation - at least, not from me.
If you don't like the concept of moderation of newsgroups, don't bother
with moderated newsgroups. There are plenty of uncensored groups out
there.

..-----<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.cooking/about?hl=en>
| About rec.food.cooking
|
| Start a new topic - Subscribe to this group - About group
|
| Activity: High
| Description: Food, cooking, cookbooks, and recipes.
| Categories: Home > Cooking
| Usenet: rec.food.cooking
| Language: English
| Activity: High
| Members: 10-100
|
|
| Access: Public - Usenet
| [...]
'-----

..-----<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.food.veg.cooking/about?hl=en>
| About rec.food.veg.cooking
|
| Start a new topic - Subscribe to this group - About group
|
| Activity: Low
| Description: Vegetarian recipes, cooking, nutrition. (Moderated)
| Categories: Recreation > Food
| Usenet: rec.food.veg
| Language: English
| Activity: Low
| Members: 10-100
|
|
| Access: Public - Usenet
| [...]
'-----

I'll let you compare the headers of the articles in those two groups. But
I will suggest this web search to you
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&h...q=moderate d+
newsgroup+list&spell=1> or <http://qurl.net/ub>.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com>, the plump guttersnipe and
theatrical leatherman who likes hardfisted anal sex with toadfishes, and
whose partner is a fuck-princess with a dishevelled fortune nookie,
wrote in <dvuuv9$86a3$1@news3.infoave.net>:

You're a certifiable fucking nutter.

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:6jgbf3-l2n.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
"I posted to a cooking newsgroup, rec.food.cooking and also included in the
newsgroup title box another group, rec.food.veg.cooking. Now
rec.food.cooking will not accept my post to them for the reasons I posted
here before."

That was what the OP said. So, according to the OP, rec.food.cooking was
the moderated group, not rec.food.veg.cooking. Why would rec.food.cooking
refuse the post if *it* wasn't the moderated group? Of course, as has been
evidenced by my post, yours, and the OP's, is that identifying which groups
are moderated has been obfuscated for no good reason. Instead users have to
go searching to find someone's list somewhere that lists the moderated
groups (known at the time the list was compiled). God forbid those that
want to censor, er, moderate their group actually overtly identify their
group as moderated by the name of their group. Those that hide something
often have a furtive reason for doing so.

I did a Google search and found one list for moderated groups at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/mod-archives/ (dated way back in 1995). The
rec.food.cooking group was not listed but rec.food.veg.cooking was. So you
were right and the OP was wrong (as to which group refused his post). But I
couldn't tell until I wandered off hunting around for a list somewhere.
Yeah, like that's convenient and immediate ... not! Moderated and
unmoderated groups should distinguish themselves from each other and not
require the user to go researching their status. Before the Great Renaming
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Renaming), moderated groups were
identified by the mod.* prefix in their name. Apparently a couple years
later there was interest in reinstating the mod.* hierarchy to identify the
moderated groups, maybe because those created moderated groups decided to
obfuscate on inspection that the group was moderated, but there aren't many
of them yet.

Yes, "moderation" does euphemize the effect. I'd rather be blunt and
truthful. Political correctness are for wimps. Of course, others, like
you, assume censorship must always be bad. Moderation. Censorship. Same
thing. I'm sure I could find some more alternative words in a thesaurus
meaning the same thing. Sensibility is also why we use "death PENALTY" or
"capital punishment" instead of "legalized murder". Being penalized or
punished somehow doesn't sound as bad as being strangled from hanging, fried
with electricity, or convulsing from [slowly] lethal drugs. Am I against
legalized killing, judical murder, execution, or whatever term you feel
comfortable with? No, but I don't go soothing my ego about what it is,
either. I don't sugar coat the truth to assuage some anonymous populace's
sensibilities. You're happy to sugar-coat moderation. I'm not a kid with a
sweet tooth.

I participate in forums and they have censoring, er, moderation (because you
like that term better). I like the censor..., er, moderation there because
it keeps the forum on topic and the community expects certain decorum there.
However, it is quite clear there is a policy of censorship. If a group
isn't labelled with ".mod", you really think users are aware that a group is
moderated? Oh, yeah, go read the charter to find out, yet those that
mention that route never do provide a link of where to find the charter for
THAT group (and *not* some FAQ for it).

I'm not trying to figure out how to circumvent moderation. I'm trying to
find out why moderated groups are not clearly identified. Would you like to
buy a car that you looked at only to have the dealer give it to you without
tires although nowhere in the contract did it actually say that tires came
with the car? There are assumptions that users will make, and in Usenet the
assumption that a group is not moderated unless identified as such. Why are
those who moderate the newsgroups (or the ones the created it) so lazy or
being so covert in hiding that the group is moderated? I may very well
visit a moderated group, say, on WinRunner (if there was such a group) which
is for software testing because I want to discuss the product with other
professionals experienced with the product, not have to bother with the
trolls as is so evident in this group. So censorship (ooh, there's that bad
word again) can be a good thing - but that censoring is enforced should be
obvious, not something requiring discovery.

I learned everything I know about POP3 and SMTP from other posters and the
references they provided, like the RFCs. So, no, I will NOT take your
advice to not listen to other posters (which includes you with a ) back at
you). I did find some more info on the mechanics of how moderation works at
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/mode...mod05.html#5.1.

Vanguard wrote:

Here's a very simple first check:

1. Look at a post in the group.

2. See if it has an "Approved" header?

Here's a header sample from a randomly chosen post in the group I've been
using as an example:

<q>

X-Original-To: soc-history-war-world-war-ii@robomod.net
X-Original-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:04:43 -0500
From: Don Phillipson <dphillipson@ncf.ca>
Subject: Fw: German flak towers
X-Bad-Message-ID: <012701c647b5$c7d956c0$83dd0148@p4>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.3.0.1, Antispam-Data: 2006.03.14.113107
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.3.0.1, Antispam-Data: 2006.03.14.135106
Message-ID: <MSPuR.A.cQ.8I0FEB@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>
X-Gweep-Robomod-Bayes-Score: 0.0001
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Approved-Poster: yes known
Organization: soc.history.war.world-war-ii moderation hosted by Gweep Systems
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:22:53 -0500
X-Gweep-Robomod-Bayes-ID: 20060314172253-1046 (as nonspam)
Approved: soc-history-war-world-war-ii-moderator@robomod.net
Path: newsspool2.news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl .earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk -nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!headwa ll.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sol01.ashbva .gweep.ca!not-for-mail
Xref: news.earthlink.net soc.history.war.world-war-ii:209283
X-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:22:54 PST
(newsspool2.news.atl.earthlink.net)

</q>

Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see it's a moderated group, mmmm?

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients

"Vanguard" <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote in message
news:dvuuv9$86a3$1@news3.infoave.net...


very sorry, i am OP and i made a typing error. it was rec.food.veg.cooking
that was the moderated group that did not accept my cross post. the other
group rec.food.cooking did accept the post.


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........

The PATH header in my post shows that it started on my
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.

Very sorry, I am OP and i made a typing error. it was rec.food.veg.cooking
that was the moderated group that did not accept my cross post. The other
group rec.food.cooking did accept the post.

On 2006-03-24, Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote:
If an article is cross-posted to a moderated group, then it won't
(shouldn't) appear anywhere without the moderator of the moderated group
having approved it. Of course, posting without a cross-post to a
moderated group is a pretty obvious way to make sure that your article
does appear in an un-moderated group.

Sheesh.

General advice about /any/ statement on the internet: *check* the facts
yourself! Errors do creep in, one way or another. As it happens, what
"jw 1111" wrote is only very slightly inaccurate; his article wasn't
appearing in RFC so he used loose reasoning to assign the cause wrongly.

General advice before participating in any newsgroup (or web forum for
that matter): *lurk*! Even if you don't think of or don't know about the
'headers' that are usually suppressed for convenence in the default
display of a news-reader, it doesn't take a huge intellect to spot
'moderation'. Even if the moderator doesn't post regular articles with
massive great big clues in the From or Subject headers.

If your newsreader is capable of displaying the 'description' part of a
newsgroups entry in its group list, then I think you'll find the word
'moderated' in that field somewhere. (I know some servers are not good at
keeping the description fields un-corrupted or even present, and some
un-moderated groups have no description).

You need to try harder, and perhaps type less, if you are trying for a
usenet kook award )

snip

Would you buy a car without first making sure you knew what you were
actually getting? Shady used-car dealers adore customers like that.

That may be your assumption; I've seen many more questions from people
about why the moderators in a particular group allow such terrible things
to be posted, when the group concerned is quite obviously not moderated
(the content obviously being one huge hint).

You need to learn to look before you leap. Moderation is not hidden, it
can't be!

For your own sanity, please try to learn how to read what is written rather
than what you think is written.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2006.03.24.02.31.41.977914@thurston.blink ynet.net...
Thanks for that tip. I checked my post in news.newusers.questions, a
moderated group (after finding it on a list), and there was the "Approved:
<email>" header. I also see in the PATH header that the first host was the
moderator's host where he/she could actually allow my post and it propagate
from there (i.e., the allowed post started on the "moderated server" rather
than on my [local] server).

Unfortunately this trick may not always work simply because there isn't a
post to look at. Some groups exist but get almost no traffic (and you won't
know that until you lurk there for awhile). Also, I'm not interesting in
reading posts over 5 days old so a rule deletes posts older than that which
means I won't see any posts unless there has been some activity since then.
There are also some NNTP servers with some very short retention times. But
if there is a post there then I can check for the Approved header as you
suggest.

Checking for a header still requires the user to discover the group is
moderated rather than being overt of that fact in the name of the group.
The group should be suffixed with .mod[erated], .announce, or .info to make
it clear the group is moderated. Spammers and malcontents use the
FollowUp-To header to redirect complaints or negative replies off to, say,
alt.test so other readers won't see the negative reply posts, but the normal
user won't know why their post never appeared in the group where they
submitted it. Its use also yanks the respondent's post to some other "home"
group for the OP to which the respondent does not visit, so they lose their
post and the rest of any discussion to their post. Users should announce in
the body of their post that they used the FollowUp-To header but rarely have
I seen a user do so, and spammers and malcontents obviously don't want to
make that fact evident to the reader. So why also hide the fact that a
group is moderated? Why be furtive? Why require discovery by the user,
most of whom won't understand all the headers (provided there is a post to
interrogate)?

As a consequence, I have had some fun investigating how moderation works
(i.e., the mechanics of it). Censorship can be a good thing but it
shouldn't be a hidden thing discovered after the fact (of trying to post
there).

Although I this reply is to Blinky's post, thanks to all for the
information. It's been fun and educational.

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:ntfdf3-b0d.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
Which I did by Googling but most articles, especially the first ones that I
found were vague, inaccurate, described what a moderator does instead of the
mechanics of setting up a moderated group, and used terms that were not
defined in the first use within the article (i.e., the article attempted to
describe the process but targeted an audience already familiar with the
audience).

That requires a person to waste their time lurking for a period of time. In
some groups, that works because you want to participate for a time after
your initial visit. Perhaps your hobby is cooking so you will lurk and then
participate for awhile in the group. However, a vast number of visitors, if
not the majority now, are one-time visitors looking for help. If you were
to ask your friend how to replace the alternator in your car, and they are
standing right there, would you send them a postcard, wait for them to write
you back on another postcard, and finally get the answer to start proceeding
to replace the alternator with the help of your friend? When asking for
help, immediacy is assumed and almost always required. The visitor wants
help now and doesn't have time to lurk around. You wouldn't stay employed
long if when testing some software you merely lurked around the developers
rather than immediately asking questions.

For some NNTP servers, I didn't have the "Use newsgroup descriptions" option
enabled. So I enabled them on all news accounts in OE. I then reset the
newsgroups list (to get it again) and got:

AIOE: no descriptions
Comcast (Giganews): won't let me download header (although supposedly not
included in the quota) until my quota resets tomorrow.
Infoave: some groups have descriptions
Microsoft private (to discuss their Defender product): no descriptions
Microsoft public: no description
Spamcop: most have descriptions
Teranews: extremely few descriptions

Infoave was the only one that had a decent number of descriptions. I then
looked at the news.newusers.questions, *.info, and *.announce groups.
Either they didn't have a description or the description said nothing about
the group being moderated. I also looked for descriptions of *.mod[erated]
groups: of the 20 that had a description, only 8 mentioned the group was
moderated. So using the descriptions is nearly useless, as effective as
using a slingshot against airborne mosquitos. Thanks for the suggestion,
however.

Be careful in who you label a kook if your only qualification for that award
is that the disagree with you or don't take your word as gospel. Yes, I
argue, because agreeing provides you with no additional information than you
already have.

Legally you only get what is specified in a contract. Check your purchase
agreement with your car dealer. Did it actually name all the parts of the
car (and they would come together)? Assumptions are made even in contracts
which a judge, if it went to court, would use (as "common sense") to deem
what would've been meant by the contract.

Which do YOU think is the most likely scenario for the *typical* newsgroup
visitor? That the visitor always goes checking the downloaded newsgroup
descriptions to check if a group is moderated, Googling for lists of
moderated groups, or interrogates existing posts looking for the Approved
header? Or that the typical visitor assumes the group is unmoderated unless
the group's name shows otherwise?

Why do you think they put "Men" and "Women" (and sometimes the symbols for
them) on the bathroom doors? So you don't have to discover AFTER you have
entered the room that you are in the wrong room. Why be furtive that a
group is moderated by NOT including that fact in the group's name? Yes, I
know that it takes effort and time to go through the RFD/CFV process to
create the group and probably the same to rename the group or create another
with the .moderated suffix. But it also takes effort and time to paint
"Men" and "Women" on the bathroom doors.

Ask those posters. You'll find many are accustomed to posting in forums.
Every forum in which I've participated publishes a policy regarding
censorship, er, moderation. Now there are forum-to-news gateways to connect
forums to Usenet and those that understood their realm within the forum
expect the same level of moderation in Usenet. Their posts are spilling out
into an unfamiliar realm either because they found a link to a newsgroup,
newly discovered them, ended up going through some webnews-for-dummies
interface, like Microsoft's CDO or Google Groups, or still think they are
posting to their forum but their post shows up and gets replied to in
newsgroups.

"Let's stop right there - you need to learn how to read accurately, and do
your own research thoroughly - not relying on whatever someone might say
in a newsgroup )."

So what part of "not relying on whatever someone might say in a newsgroup"
did I not understand (including the double-grin smiley) when I said that I
will NOT follow your advice which is obviously also "whatever someone might
say in a newsgroup"? I didn't say that I would rely on all information
dispersed here. I said that I would not "not rely". Your advice gives me
no choice but to not rely on info here. I also am not going to rely on all
info here. I'll choose on how much reliance I place on any post here or in
any other group or anywhere else that I read information.

Also, please explain how anyone can interpret differently than what they
*think* something says? Every reply you've made was also based on what you
THINK was said or what you THINK the other person meant. The mechanics of
reading are not the same as interpretation or cogitation. Your statement is
nonsensical (as are many precanned mots) because what everyone interprets
from writing or speech is obviously what they THINK was to be conveyed.

But we really need to waste time and space on questioning each other's
intelligence? What seems more evident is that we are both stubborn. I'll
keep asking, if it's important to me, until I get a decent answer. If I
push, I expect to get more info or pushed back. I've gotten some good
information here which I will not "not rely" and other "information" which I
will discard, but I have learned something more about moderation than I knew
before, and obviously I wouldn't have gotten that information without some
pushing for it.

"jw 1111" <blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:W2MUf.30273$zr.25148@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Don't fret much. Often subthreads start on a sub- or side-topic because of
interest (or opinions) between other posters. It's normal. I was almost
going to start a thread in a different group (maybe news.admin.censorship,
since I couldn't find one that discussed Usenet "moderation") that is
probably more focused on how censorship, er, moderation works but I was
still getting some useful tidbits here.

You wanted to know why your post got rejected whereas this subthread
diverged (or devolved, depending on your view) into why they aren't clearly
and *easily* identified as moderated groups and also on how moderation
works. At least this subthread still was about something related to
moderation. Sometimes folks will make a statement but it takes a bit of
prodding or yanking to get them to qualify their statement or provide
explanations (often because they don't have that info). It can be difficult
to convert a preacher into a teacher. I've also seen subthreads wander off
onto completely different subjects (off-topic to the parent thread but maybe
still on-topic to the group) or into insult barrages (which might be where
this subthread is now heading so I'll stop participating).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

Vanguard wrote:

....
Sometimes a person will cross-post (i.e. to multiple groups)
and ONE of those groups will be moderated: never cross-post
to a moderated group (although you may have replied to someone else's post)
because that can cause your post to be cancelled.

On 2006-03-24, Vanguard <vanguard.news@yahooNIX.com> wrote:

snip

You would have got it quicker and with generating a lot less useless
verbiage if you'd researched properly for yourself.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:iusdf3-hcf.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
And what do you call asking in here? If participating in newsgroups is
a complete waste of effort, why are you here? Researching also includes
asking, discussing, and arguing in newsgroups.

Thanks for the informational tidbits so far.

Vanguard wrote:

You're welcome.

No, it doesn't. If you're interested in a group, it's a way TO determine
if it's moderated or not. Hey, alt.repetition.over.and.over looks
interesting. <download last post or whatever minimum number your news
client allows> It [has|doesn't have] an Approved header. Now you know.

Well, that's a better stance than your original one that claimed all
moderated groups ended with .mod. And also on the positive side, when
you're King Of The Internet, you can pass that law.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients