I recently posted to a newgroup and included one other newsgroup in my
subject title box so that it also went to another newsgroup.

I then received this following message from the administrators of that group
which i don't understand and I also received no response, when i asked
politely for an explanation.

This is what they sent me:

"Your message is cross-posted (to several newsgroups) - but it has
no Followup-To header (which would direct replies to a single
newsgroup, rather than have all replies go to all newsgroups).
Please resubmit with a Followup-To header, which is good netiquette."

What is a follow up to header please, and how do I set one up.? Many
thanks

In news:M7lTf.11496$u31.4797@newsfe2-win.ntli.net,
jw 1111 spewed forth:
Sure - next time you create or reply to a post, (since you're using OE)
click on View, All headers, and put your selected newsgroup (where you are
most likely to go read replies) in the Reply-To: field.

--
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.

"jw 1111" <blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:M7lTf.11496$u31.4797@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Some people get excessively wound up about cross-posting (to more than one
newsgroup). Because of that it's sometimes easier to just post the message
separately to each group where it's relevant.

"Rich Wilson" <rich@spam-spamson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0dlTf.7561$KF3.2865@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Many thanks to all replies. Why do they get wound up about it ?

Rich Wilson wrote:

No it isn't. Why create double/triple work for the respondents?

http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

"jw 1111" <blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:M7lTf.11496$u31.4797@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

If you post the SAME message to multiple RELATED newsgroups then you should
cross-post. Keep the number of groups to under 4 (as it is pretty difficult
to find *related* newsgroups numbering more than that). Don't post in a
parent group and then to every subtopic group under the parent. Keep your
post on-topic for each group. Cross-posting is bad when it is abused.
Well, gee, so is water if you drown someone in it rather than give them the
glass of water that they asked for.

Cross-posting allows readers in each group to see replies from all
respondents in the other groups to which you cross-posted. That means they
do not have to waste their time posting duplicated messages. It is curteous
to use cross-posting so other users can view the threads in their own "home"
group and not get forced to go subscribe to someone else's home group.

Cross-posting also reduces disk space. Every multi-posted copy of a message
is a, well, separate copy. Multi-posting a message to 4 groups means you
sent 4 copies of your message rather than just one copy. Doesn't sound like
much until you take into account any attachments in the message along with
the fact that your posts will propagate to every other NNTP server worldwide
so the aggregate total of disk space is a lot larger. Cross-posting submits
just one copy of the message to your NNTP server with links to it in the
other cross-posted groups. You've reduced the overheard of your post.

For those users that may visit some or all of the other groups to which you
cross-posted, they will not have to bother rereading your same message. If
they read it in one group, it will get marked as read when they visit
another group with that same cross-posted message. Again, you are being
courteous.

The use of the FollowUp-To header is when some joker thinks their newsgroups
is the only newsgroup to which you should've posted. It yanks everyone
replies to their "home" group which means the respondent won't even see
their own post in the group that THEY visit. If I reply to a cross-posted
message in *my* home group, I expect to see my reply there. It is very rude
to yank it somewhere else since there is no guarantee that a user will
wander all over to every cross-posted group looking for what happened in the
thread. Someone might want to visit microsoft.public.outlook but NOT visit
microsoft.public.outlook.general. Don't go foisting your (or some joker's)
preferences on the respondents.

Spammers and malcontents use the FollowUp-To header to redirect replies
(that they don't want to appear) off to the alt.test or other group. That
way, they "win" the argument because your replies are hidden from everyone
else's view that is visiting the group where they expect the thread to
continue. I very much wish that Outlook Express would show the FollowUp-To
header so I could see when some idiot was attempting to redirect replies
from one group to another. If you ever use the FollowUp-To header, you
should very much announce that fact so other users will know the trick you
are attempting to play on them.

Spammers and malcontents (and newbies) use multi-posting. They also use the
FollowUp-To header to redirect complaints and opposing viewpoints to
somewhere that will be hidden from other readers. There isn't any use of
the FollowUp-To header which isn't abusive to the participants of the group
in which you posted. You are forcing the participants of one group to go
subscribe to some other group that they might not care about. I may
eventually change to a different NNTP client, like Xnews, and one filter
would auto-delete any joker's post that tries to use the FollowUp-To header.
Such users are rude. If you want your posts redirected to somewhere else
then just post over at somewhere else and keep your damn posts out of the
groups that you don't intend to visit because, in like manner, we aren't
going to bother getting dragged somewhere else just because of your
preference. If you don't have the time to visit a newsgroup to which you
post to check for replies, and you refuse to cross-post, then do NOT post
somewhere else!

Both cross-posting and multi-posting can be abused, but multi-posting always
incurs some nuisance to others. There should be no need to cross-post to
more than 6 groups. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find more than 4
*related* differently-named groups. If you post in a parent group, don't go
also posting in a child group (e.g., if you post in
microsoft.public.outlook[.general] then don't also post in
microsoft.public.outlook.fax, and visa versa). Make sure your message is
on-topic in *each* cross-posted group AND that the groups are *related* to
each other. Don't post (whether cross-post or multi-post) to a group that
you have not visited. If you don't know the group, you don't know if the
group wants your post there. Lurk for awhile, or severely limit to which
group(s) you post to the ones where you will go check for the replies.

Cross-posting is polite. It lets all readers in each group watch the entire
thread without having to wander of to some other group that they may not
participate. Cross-posting reduces the amount of disk space consumed on a
single NNTP server and the aggregate size across all the NNTP servers
worldwide. With multi-posting, you disconnect readers in one group from
seeing replies made in another group. With multi-posting, you end up having
to check each group for replies. The FollowUp-To header, if not used by a
spammer or malcontent, is a convenience ONLY for the original poster, *not*
for any of the respondents, especially since they may not know that their
post is getting redirected (few NNTP client sound an alarm telling the user
that their reply will disappear off into some other group to which they
submitted their reply post). Cross-posting can be abused. Multi-posting is
always abusive. FollowUp-To header is always a nuisance and the vast
majority of its use is abusive.

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

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:4tlTf.589214$qk4.376791@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I didn't say I agreed with it...

"jw 1111" <blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:7nlTf.7590$KF3.3043@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
I really don't know!

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:04:41 +0000, Rich Wilson wrote:

Trolls do it a /lot/ to drag other newsgroups into arguments which has
/nothing/ to do with the original discussion started in one particular
group. That's why some groups regard /anyone/ crossposting with suspicion.

--
SuSE 10.1 (Agama Lizard) Development distro

thanks to all replies. what actually happened is that 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.

is this not a kind of censorship which will 'squeeze out' and hence close
very small groups like rec.food.veg.cooking, because very huge groups like
rec.food.cooking are in effect saying only contact us? its like a
monopoly taking advantage of their size to limit anyone else getting off the
ground is it not? Thanks for any further advice.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:39:11 GMT, "jw 1111"
<blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote:

Don't post to moderated groups. They are usually a mutual masturbation
society where outsiders are discouraged and the inhabitants bear the
mark of generations of inbreeding to mothers and daughters.

If you really must post to a moderated group then only post to that
group. If you want the same message posted to other groups keep them
separate from the moderated group and post copies rather than cross
posting.

"jw 1111" <blue.star77@REMOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:3gyTf.12825$Nh7.1036@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

Ask them to actually provide PROOF of their claimed charter (and who claims
to be its author). It is an UNMODERATED newsgroup. Anyone can make any
claims they want regarding use of the newsgroup but they are just a wannabe
cop trying to make you believe they can weild power. They don't weild any
power and cannot prevent you from posting in any newsgroup. If you are
using the wannabe cop's news server, he can probably delete your post.
However, if you post through someone else's news server, all the wannabe cop
can do is delete the copy on his server but he cannot do anything on all the
other worldwide farm of news servers.

A moderated group is supposed to be named with the .mod suffix. If the
wannabe cop wants to regulate his own news server to omit cross-posted
messages, he should've created an rec.food.cooking.mod newsgroup. Without
the .mod, it is NOT a moderated newsgroup (except in this wannabe cop's own
mind or on his own server). He can cancel your post on his news server and
hope that the cancel propagates to other news servers but few news servers
honor cancels anymore because of abuse by malcontents that can delete anyone
else's posts.

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

Vanguard wrote:

Did you look that up, or are you basing that call on your idea that it's
not moderated because .mod isn't in the name. If the latter...

....you should probably note that not all moderated groups have .mod in
the name.


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

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2006.03.21.03.50.03.149170@thurston.blink ynet.net...

And how is a group moderated? By the admins of a particular NNTP server
issuing cancels. That only affects THAT particular server. The admin may
hope that the cancels will propagate (do they?) to other NNTP server
worldwide except that many, if not most, will not honor cancels. Almost
anyone can issue cancels against anyone else's posts. Google learned this
when they had to keep restoring posts deleted by a cancel gang. I use
Giganews and it doesn't honor cancels (although it does have a
control.cancel group). A couple other NNTP servers that I've used do honor
cancels. So whether someone claiming to be an admin of a group can perform
a cancel depends on which server the visitor is connecting. I suppose the
admin of the policed (i.e., moderated) server could try to kill the post
before allowing it to get submitted so that it gets killed and never
propagates to other NNTP servers that won't honor cancels. However, since
the group has been moderated to those other NNTP servers and since users can
post to that group on the other NNTP server, cancelling posts on the policed
server won't affect the post that started on some other NNTP server (or any
other servers to which the post got propagated and which don't honor
cancels).

Unless a group does not get propagated to other NNTP servers worldwide
(i.e., it is a "private" group on a particular server, how can an admin on
NNTP host #1 that cancels a post there get rid of the post after it
propagated to NNTP host #2? I can see a bot scanning the submitted posts to
NNTP host #1 might trash the post so it can never get propagated, but a post
by a user that appears and later gets nixed by an admin might be too late
since the post may have already been propagated. Also, if the user posts to
the group carried on NNTP host #2 and it propagates back to the policed NNTP
host #1, what good does it do to nix the post on NNTP host #1 since NNTP
host #2 already has it (and doesn't honor cancels)?

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

Vanguard wrote:

I'll tell you in a moment...

....but first I wanted to see if you really did have "cancelled" and
"moderated" all confused. Ayup, very verbally so.

Here's how soc.history.war.world-war-ii is moderated. Not cancelled,
you'll note -- moderated. This his how posts go to the moderators for
*approval*, and if approved are then posted *to the group* by those
moderators. Pay particular attention to the whole paste, and even more
attention to: "While reading newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii simply
respond to the article or post a new article. The article will be
automatically routed to one of the active moderators for review" and
"Again, your article will reach one of the moderators for review."

From the group's FAQ:

<q>

MODERATION SETUP/APARATUS
_________________________

This group will be group-moderated using a Majordomo listserver. It has
been configured so that each article received at ww2-sub@acpub.duke.edu
will be sent to the next moderator in turn, using a list of subscribed
moderators. Hence, the *submission* address for articles will be
ww2-sub@acpub.duke.edu. The *contact* address for the group, once created,
will be ww2-mod@acpub.duke.edu.

************************************************** **********************

<snip>

-------
Subject: 7) Where & How to submit articles ?

There are two ways to do so:

A- through USENET

While reading newsgroup soc.history.war.world-war-ii simply respond to the
article or post a new article. The article will be automatically routed to
one of the active moderators for review.

B- Through E-MAIL

You may submit your article to the following address. Again, your article
will reach one of the moderators for review.

The e-mail address is:

ww2-sub@acpub.duke.edu

************************************************** **********************
************************************************** **********************

-------
Subject: 8) Some Helpful Tips

It may take up to 1-2 days for your article to be reviewed and another day
or so for the article to reach your site after being posted from a
moderator's site.

Articles not deemed fit for posting on the forum will be returned by the
moderator with an explanation citing a rationale & the guidelines of the
forum.

1. Always save a copy of your article you submit till it appears on the
forum.

2. If the article does not appear on the newsgroup and the article was not
returned back by the moderator AND 3 days have elapsed: Please contact the
moderators, ASAP, at the following e-mail address:

ww2-mod@acpub.duke.edu

</q>

Nopers. Not cancellations at all, eh? Approvals. Not approved, not
posted to the group.

But your description about cancels was good. Just irrelevant.


--
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

Wow. Thanks for all the good info. Lets me better understand how
moderation works. I figured that a moderator could block the submission of
a post on their NNTP server or could do it retroactively using cancels but I
don't see how one cop regulating one NNTP server can enforce the same rules
on other NNTP servers.

- If a post must be reviewed by a moderator before the submission is allowed
to get posted on their server, doesn't that mean there will be a much larger
lag in getting posts to show up? The pasted article says it could take 1 to
2 days for a submission to get reviewed before it would show up on their
particular NNTP server. Geez, what a worthless medium for communication.
While Usenet doesn't provide the immediacy of chat rooms, it should, at
least, approximate the interactiveness available in forums. I'm used to
forums where there may be an Iron Claw policy that will retroactively delete
posts, might kill an account, or even ban a user by IP address (for awhile)
but waiting around for a moderator would totally disintegrate the flow of
communication between visitors to a group. It would be okay if it were a
group where, for example, visitors were advertising their cars for sale,
like the bulletin board at the grocery store. However, someone asking for
help or attempting to have a conversation would end up getting delayed far
too long. It degenerates a group into a post-only group and discussion
(i.e., replies) would be so delayed that it would be highly likely that no
one would reply, if they could. I far prefer the retroactive Iron Claw
scheme employed in forums. This moderation scheme for Usenet really sucks
as it severely interferes with communication, but then I live in a country
with more freedoms rather than in a dictatorship and have to blare out "Hile
Hilter" everytime I wanted to get permission to speak.

- Are bots ever used to regulate submission of posts? For something like a
rule regarding cross-posting (which might be an anti-spam measure based on
the number of newsgroups) it seems a bot would be easier and quicker than
having a human check every post just to verify how the post was submitted
versus its content.

- How does moderating submissions on one NNTP host enforce the same actions
(allow or block) on other NNTP servers? Are they required to stay in sync?
What if an NNTP host doesn't keep their groups in sync? And to which NNTP
server would they use as the master to remain in sync? I can see
controlling your own NNTP server but not how one can enforce any actions be
committed by someone else's NNTP server.

- If reciprocity amongst NNTP servers cannot be enforced, it seems the easy
way to circumvent moderation is to simply post at a different NNTP server.
The policing NNTP server wouldn't see the submission from the poster but
instead get the post through synchronization which would seem to require a
cancel by the moderator at the policing NNTP server. But if moderation
(blocking a submission or cancelling a sync'ed post) is only enforced at and
only for the policing NNTP server, it does little to actually moderate the
group - unless that group isn't carried on any NNTP server than the one
being moderated. In your pasted article, the poster submits to
ww2-sub@acpub.duke.edu so it would be their NNTP server where the post might
first show up if a moderator allowed the post. But the group is carried by
other NNTP servers so why, for example, couldn't the poster use Google
Groups to submit a post to the group, let it propagate to all other NNTP
servers worldwide, except for maybe this particular NNTP server at duke.edu?
Is there a master NNTP server designated for each group through which all
submissions are routed before they are allowed to propagate to other NNTP
servers, even back to the one to which the original post was submitted?

- The problem that I've had in knowing the charter for a group is actually
finding the charter. Is there a catchall site that lists the charter for
each group? I've seen the charter show up occasionally as a repost in a
group but it eventually disappears (and why it got reposted). Some NNTP
servers don't retain as long as others so the charter will disappear more
quickly on some.

- Why would a group not append ".mod" to the end of its name to let visitors
understand that it is a moderated group? Why hide that fact? If there were
some means to force reciprocity of moderation on the policing NNTP server to
other NNTP servers then why isn't the use of ".mod" also enforced? Why
would a group deliberately misrepresent itself?

Like Cisco said, and if moderation works as Blinky says, and if the
censorship is somehow enforced onto other NNTP servers outside the physical
control of the censors, er, moderators of the group, then moderated groups
really are for masturbating moderators who like delaying and interferring
with the communications between other users. Boy, am I glad the telcos
don't operate that way, or forums, or the unmoderated groups. I participate
in many forums and many of them incorporate some censorship but it is
retroactive so there is no delay in communications between users where the
posts would not have been censored. If the jerkoffs can only police their
own NNTP server, it seems pretty easy to get around their slimy grip by
posting to the group using a different NNTP server.

I'm not against censorship as long as its employment was overt, like using
".mod" in the group name. If ".mod" was supposed to mean to designate a
moderated group and if a group is moderated that refuses to announce that
fact by using the ".mod" qualifier, why wouldn't the rest of the Usenet
server community simply censor out
groups that misrepresents themselves? I'm not against censorship to
regulate the [lack of] professionalism or retain focus of a forum, but it
shouldn't interfere with the immediacy or timeliness of the posts. Usenet
already has some lag in communication but moderation, if as described, would
devolve it into using postcards sent via snail mail.

Vanguard wrote:

You're welcome.

<snip>

Response to whole post:

1. ww2-sub@acpub.duke.edu doesn't appear to BE an NNTP server (when's the
last time you saw an "at symbol" in a news server name?), and all of your
New Questions still still seem to assume that is is. Somehow - I don't
know how - when I post to the group it ends up there, not IN the group.
So while you appear to have read what I pasted from that group's FAQ,
you're still producing cubic yards of verbiage based on your original
assumption that users are posting directly to the group.

2. All I know is what I can read in that FAQ. If you'd like to see the
whole document, download the last couple thousand posts in
soc.history.war.world-war-ii; that's how I snagged it when I wanted an
example that I'd read and knew explained away your "moderated by
cancellation" misconception.

3. Using an email address contained in that FAQ (for disputing
moderation, IIRC), contact the moderators for more information. Make it
clear that you're not trying to find ways *around* moderation and that
you'd just like to understand the technical aspects of the system. I've
only posted there rarely and not for quite a while, so there won't be any
reason to name-drop.

Good luck.

--
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

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.2006.03.22.18.58.56.798811@thurston.blink ynet.net...
I assumed the charter was discussing how to use a mail-to-news gateway. The
users send their post to the e-mail server which then uses the Majordomo
thing to notify the moderators of the post (maybe also through e-mail), and
somehow a moderator sends a command back to the mail server that permits it
to send the post to the NNTP server (which is *their* NNTP server).

The charter (you pasted) mentions Majordomo. From
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Majordomo.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majordomo_%28software%29, it would appear the
"group" front end uses e-mail and that it is a mailing list rather than a
group. Yet these e-mails, once allowed, also show up in a Usenet group, so
there must be a mail-to-news gateway employed to get the authorized mails
from their mail list server over to an NNTP server to which we are
connecting to to which other worldwide NNTP servers are sychronizing.

I've been on mailing lists before, like the one for MVPS. None of those
mails end up in a newsgroup. It is just a mailing list. For the mails to
get to Usenet means something more than a list server was employed, like a
mail-to-news gateway (and now some forums are using a mail-to-news gateway,
too).

When I do a search on newsgroups for the NNTP server to which I connect,
rec.food.veg.cooking is listed. Obviously I am using an NNTP client to
connect to the group and not e-mail. So if the charter mentions about using
e-mail to submit posts to a mailing list and those posts are getting to the
Usenet group (which is a copy of that mailing list) then some gateway
between their mail server and an NNTP server must be in place.

Since the "group" is not only available by using the e-mail scheme of
submitting messages but also by accessing the Usenet newsgroup for that
mailing list, just how are the moderators of the mailing list for which they
have control going to control who posts what at someone else's NNTP server
that carries that group? Obviously these moderators don't own, say,
Giganews which carries the newsgroup so how can the moderators prevent
someone from posting to the group using a Giganews NNTP server? Unless
there is reciprocity amongst all NNTP servers to keep their posts within a
group in sync with each other, moderation seems fruitless. They may
moderate within their realm (which is the mailing list) but can't do
anything about the messages on everyone else's NNTP server to which they
have gatewayed their mailing list.

Regardless of how their charter says to submit posts, just how is
rec.food.cooking going to prevent me from using Giganews, AIOE, InfoAve, or
some other NNTP server to post any message to that group? And of keeping my
post there on that NNTP server and to most other NNTP servers while maybe
just not getting on their own NNTP server? That's why I mentioned cancels
because they don't control the other NNTP hosts, are using e-mail to
regulate the submitted posts and are probably not using a bot or scheme with
the NNTP server to removed unwanted posts, and cancels don't propagate or
many NNTP servers don't honor them - so they cannot get rid of unwanted
posts that were submitted to an NNTP server versus being submitted through
their e-mail scheme.

I would venture to guess that vast majority of newsgroup visitor are using
an NNTP client or a webnews-for-dummies interface (which both go to an NNTP
server or propagate to other NNTP servers). So how is their e-mail scheme
going to prevent posts from appearing when NOT using their Majordomo e-mail
scheme?

I can go wander around trying to find their complete charter but I doubt it
matters as it probably does not discuss the technologies involved in
synchronizing their mailing list into the Usenet group.

- They can regulate submissions sent through their e-mail server (which, if
allowed on their mailing list, also show up in the Usenet group). This
would eliminate an unwanted post from ever showing up in their mailing list
and also through the mail-to-news gateway to *their* NNTP server.

- They cannot prevent anyone from submitting posts to an NNTP server that
they do NOT control.
- They cannot prevent other NNTP servers that they do NOT control from
synchronizing with the poster's NNTP server to get their post.
- They can use cancels in the control.cancel group to get rid of an unwanted
post but that may only work on their own NNTP server. Do cancels submitted
to the control.cancel group get propagated to other NNTP servers?
- If the cancels propagate to other NNTP servers, it will only work for the
few that still honor cancels. If cancels don't propagate to other NNTP
servers, all the moderators can do is regulate their own NNTP server.

I don't see how moderation can work in Usenet. The NNTP server to which the
post was submitted are not under their control, nor are the other NNTP
servers to which the post get propagated. It's reminiscent of the little
child covering her eyes with her hands while sitting atop Daddy's lap and
declaring, "You can't see me now."

I just posted to rec.food.cooking (asking about sea salt). Okay, so how are
the moderators of a mailing list with a mail-2-news gateway going to prevent
my post from appearing on the group when using the InfoAve NNTP server?
They can't! My post DID show up in the group. The only way now to get rid
of it is not through proactive moderation (using their Majordomo mailing
list to notify moderators) but through retroactive cancellation. I haven't
tested if InfoAve supports cancels. If I had posted using my Giganews NNTP
server, I know that cancels are ignored there.

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

Vanguard wrote:

As I suggested in my last post, ask a moderator. I suggested the
moderators of soc.history.war.world-war-ii because that was the FAQ I
partially quoted. As I said, I don't know much about this stuff, other
than what I read there, as it's the only moderate group for which I've
ever looked into the process.

As for posting via email: when I hit followup in that group with my NNTP
client, the reply pane not surprisingly includes the header

Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

I don't even have an SMTP client *configured* in my news client, because I
*never* send email responses. Read: *I* am not sending my reply via
email; somehow it gets - privately - to the moderator that's next up in
the moderators' circle. But it's not leaving here as email.

This is my last post on this, Vanguard. I don't mean that snotty and
there are no hard feelings involved -- but I've given you all that I know,
more than once, and told you where to go for more information. I simply
have no more information or direction to add to the discussion.


--
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

On 2006-03-22, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
snip

As an example of how one particular real usenet newsgroup is moderated,
visit news.newusers.questions and find the latest of the weekly
auto-postings of the article with the subject

!ADMIN: This is a MODERATED Newsgroup

Note that the name of that group doesn't reveal that it is moderated, but
a brief lurk there will soon make it obvious. Posts submitted to that
group that the 'bots' can't deal with automatically are referred for a
human decision - and the poster will get an automatic email saying so, if
a real email address was used in the From field. Only when 'approved' by
the human or automated moderator will the article be allowed to propagate
to any news-servers.



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