Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:

>>Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
>>and who to censor bothers me.

>Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
>not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.

This is entirely wrong. Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A
spam countermeasure is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single
newsgroup.

Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved header
if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be edited
otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated newsgroups.

Instead, moderation is used to reject proto articles that might be
trolls or advertising or off topic in some other way. The problem is
that the newsgroup's regulars are incapable of sitting on their hands and
not post followups. The problem is that a newsgroup's regulars are seen
as so immature that they stop posting on topic in the face of any amount
of off-topic posts.

Of course that's ridiculous. Grown ups don't require moderated
newsgroups. A group's regular has to decide for himself to post on
topic, regardless of what other people are posting or not posting, and
never to troll feed.

The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic articles
weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of several moderated
newsgroups that still have active moderators but negligible
participation.

Also, CHANGING the moderation flag from unmoderated to moderated --
called moderation in place -- is well known NOT to work because there is
no way to force any server that created the group to act on a control
message issued years later that resets the flag. The bad result would be
a mix of servers with the group moderated and unmoderated, which means
articles will propogate poorly.

>. . .

Am 22.09.2023 um 17:05:52 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> >Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:
>
> >>Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
> >>and who to censor bothers me.
>
> >Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
> >not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.
>
> This is entirely wrong.

It isn't. Spam can be reduced, but there will be a small amount of
spam. Moderation makes it possible to allow that spam to reach the
newsgroup.

> Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam countermeasure
> is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single newsgroup.

That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.

> Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved header
> if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be edited
> otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated newsgroups.

Then it is the moderator's fault.

> Instead, moderation is used to reject proto articles that might be
> trolls or advertising or off topic in some other way. The problem is
> that the newsgroup's regulars are incapable of sitting on their hands
> and not post followups. The problem is that a newsgroup's regulars
> are seen as so immature that they stop posting on topic in the face
> of any amount of off-topic posts.
>
> Of course that's ridiculous. Grown ups don't require moderated
> newsgroups. A group's regular has to decide for himself to post on
> topic, regardless of what other people are posting or not posting, and
> never to troll feed.

Wrong guess, even adults can be trolls, see all the stuff that was
posted through mixmin.
Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that bullshit
if there is a good moderation.

> The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
> articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of several
> moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but negligible
> participation.

Another problem.

> Also, CHANGING the moderation flag from unmoderated to moderated --
> called moderation in place -- is well known NOT to work because there
> is no way to force any server that created the group to act on a
> control message issued years later that resets the flag. The bad
> result would be a mix of servers with the group moderated and
> unmoderated, which means articles will propogate poorly.

I agree with that.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 22.09.2023 um 17:05:52 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>Am 22.09.2023 um 11:17:10 Uhr schrieb sticks:

>>>>Personally, the thought of a group of people deciding what is spam
>>>>and who to censor bothers me.

>>>Moderation can be different. Moderators CAN censor, but they can also
>>>not do it and simply not allow spam to be posted.

>>This is entirely wrong.

>It isn't.

"Cancellable spam" has well-known definitions. skirv's FAQ still gets
posted regularly on that cron job. Read it as you are unfamiliar with
the "current" threshold; it's a decades-old FAQ.

>Spam can be reduced, but there will be a small amount of spam.
>Moderation makes it possible to allow that spam to reach the
>newsgroup.

There are instances of spam for which spam countermeasures have not yet
been devised. Yes, Marco, we are all aware of that. That DOES NOT make
moderation an EFFECTIVE spam countermeaure which, again, is just one
newsgroup. An EFFECTIVE spam countermeasure is implemented server wide.

That there is spam that hasn't been cancelled is never a reason to
propose a moderated newsgroup.

>>Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam countermeasure
>>is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single newsgroup.

>That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
>spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.

What the hell does that have to do with moderation? Moderation is
approval or rejection of the proto article and does not act upon
a Usenet articles that wasn't stopped with a spam countermeasure.

>>Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved header
>>if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be edited
>>otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated newsgroups.

>Then it is the moderator's fault.

No, this is YOUR fault for making comments in followup that are
irrelevant to what's being discussed.

A moderator will see email spam because of the nature of moderation. He
isn't going to see Usenet spam. The spam he sees (that get through his
email filters) is nothing to do with spam countermeasures already taken.

Are you even aware that an article submitted to a moderated newsgroup
goes through what's essentially a News to Mail gateway? In theory, the
spammer will have been kicked off the well-run server and won't have the
ability to post. But email spammers would attempt to spam the submission
address.

It doesn't work the way you think it does.

>>Instead, moderation is used to reject proto articles that might be
>>trolls or advertising or off topic in some other way. The problem is
>>that the newsgroup's regulars are incapable of sitting on their hands
>>and not post followups. The problem is that a newsgroup's regulars
>>are seen as so immature that they stop posting on topic in the face
>>of any amount of off-topic posts.

>>Of course that's ridiculous. Grown ups don't require moderated
>>newsgroups. A group's regular has to decide for himself to post on
>>topic, regardless of what other people are posting or not posting, and
>>never to troll feed.

>Wrong guess, even adults can be trolls, see all the stuff that was
>posted through mixmin.

There are adults who make it into adult age who never learned to act
like adults. Yes, that's true. From context, I'm addressing adult
BEHAVIOR and not physical age.

>Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that bullshit
>if there is a good moderation.

There will never be enough moderators to make you happy, Marco. There
are hundreds of abandoned moderated groups. "If there is no shortage of
good people willing to moderate effectively" is handwaiving.

>>The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
>>articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of several
>>moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but negligible
>>participation.

>Another problem.

You're ignoring what I'm saying. There is no evidence that the advantage
of moderation actually encourages an adequate amount of on-topic
posting.

>>. . .

Am 22.09.2023 um 18:29:47 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

> >>Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam
> >>countermeasure is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single
> >>newsgroup.
>
> >That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
> >spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.
>
> What the hell does that have to do with moderation?

Because in moderated newsgroups that spam will only reach the
moderation address, but not the newsgroup.

> Moderation is approval or rejection of the proto article and does not
> act upon a Usenet articles that wasn't stopped with a spam
> countermeasure.

These articles will not be posted to the group directly, they go to the
moderation mailbox first, so spam isn't successful. I dunno if spammers
take time to post them there if it isn't going to be published. I
cannot look inside of spammer´s brains.

> >>Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved
> >>header if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be
> >>edited otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated
> >>newsgroups.
>
> >Then it is the moderator's fault.
>
> No, this is YOUR fault for making comments in followup that are
> irrelevant to what's being discussed.

You started with the censorship discussion.

> A moderator will see email spam because of the nature of moderation.
> He isn't going to see Usenet spam. The spam he sees (that get through
> his email filters) is nothing to do with spam countermeasures already
> taken.
>
> Are you even aware that an article submitted to a moderated newsgroup
> goes through what's essentially a News to Mail gateway? In theory, the
> spammer will have been kicked off the well-run server and won't have
> the ability to post. But email spammers would attempt to spam the
> submission address.

Is that currently a real situation?
The most spam comes from Google groups and that means it comes from
Googles News2Mail gateway.

> >Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that
> >bullshit if there is a good moderation.
>
> There will never be enough moderators to make you happy, Marco. There
> are hundreds of abandoned moderated groups. "If there is no shortage
> of good people willing to moderate effectively" is handwaiving.

I agree with that, but that is not a problem by moderation itself if
there are nut enough moderators.
I don't advocate creating a moderated newsgroup for the go programming
language.

> >>The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
> >>articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of
> >>several moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but
> >>negligible participation.
>
> >Another problem.
>
> You're ignoring what I'm saying. There is no evidence that the
> advantage of moderation actually encourages an adequate amount of
> on-topic posting.

That is true, but it prevents trollposts and other abusive articles
being approved.

Again, I don't think that a moderated group is good for the Go language
and the RfC doesn't suggest it. The author pointed out that moderation
was just a guess for last resort in the case the group will be flooded
by off-topic posts.
I don't think that will happen.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 22.09.2023 um 18:29:47 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

>>>>Moderation is not a useful spam countermeasure. A spam
>>>>countermeasure is ALWAYS implemented server wide, not in a single
>>>>newsgroup.

>>>That is one part of it, but every public newsserver can be used for
>>>spam and the admin can detect it only after it has been posted.

>>What the hell does that have to do with moderation?

>Because in moderated newsgroups that spam will only reach the
>moderation address, but not the newsgroup.

That's not true.

A well-run News site implements spam countermeasures and TOSses users
that violate AUP. A spammer will get TOSsed and therefore CANNOT get a
proto article gated to the moderation address. An unapproved moderated
article received from a peer (that's improperly set the moderation flag
to unmoderated) gets junked and not submitted to the moderation address.
A self-approved article that hasn't gotten caught doesn't get submitted
to the moderation address. If it gets caught, it gets junked.

You're getting it all very wrong.

>>Moderation is approval or rejection of the proto article and does not
>>act upon a Usenet articles that wasn't stopped with a spam
>>countermeasure.

>These articles will not be posted to the group directly, they go to the
>moderation mailbox first, so spam isn't successful. . . .

Wrong. NO SPAM AT ALL reaches the moderation address from a News site
that has implemented spam countermeasures and TOSses a spammer for
violating AUP.

You've got this bizarre notion that spam can be fought one newsgroup at
a time rather than with policies that apply to the entire server and by
implementing spam countermeasures. Please adjust your thinking.

Moderation IS NOT the solution to spam.

>>>>Also, it's not censorship, per se. A moderator adds an Approved
>>>>header if the article is approved. The article isn't supposed to be
>>>>edited otherwise, but that does happen in certain moderated
>>>>newsgroups.

>>>Then it is the moderator's fault.

>>No, this is YOUR fault for making comments in followup that are
>>irrelevant to what's being discussed.

>You started with the censorship discussion.

I did not. I said, pedantically, that "censorship" is not the correct
term to apply to moderation. The terms we use are "approved" or
"rejected". You posted something irrelevant in followup.

>>A moderator will see email spam because of the nature of moderation.
>>He isn't going to see Usenet spam. The spam he sees (that get through
>>his email filters) is nothing to do with spam countermeasures already
>>taken.

>>Are you even aware that an article submitted to a moderated newsgroup
>>goes through what's essentially a News to Mail gateway? In theory, the
>>spammer will have been kicked off the well-run server and won't have
>>the ability to post. But email spammers would attempt to spam the
>>submission address.

>Is that currently a real situation?

Of course it is. Any email address could end up on a list sold to
spammers.

>The most spam comes from Google groups and that means it comes from
>Googles News2Mail gateway.

I have no idea. If it were a problem, it would be straightforward for a
moderator to filter such proto articles, setting them aside for later to
look for on topic articles or junk them all if the spam is overwhelming.

>>>Moderation makes it possible to have a group without all that
>>>bullshit if there is a good moderation.

>>There will never be enough moderators to make you happy, Marco. There
>>are hundreds of abandoned moderated groups. "If there is no shortage
>>of good people willing to moderate effectively" is handwaiving.

>I agree with that, but that is not a problem by moderation itself if
>there are nut enough moderators.

It's a problem for people proposing moderation of new groups who fail to
look at the issue objectively.

>I don't advocate creating a moderated newsgroup for the go programming
>language.

Ok. You CANNOT advocate for it AT ALL for ANY proposed group as you have
no ability to recruit a good person to moderate.

>>>>The theory that moderation encourages posting because off topic
>>>>articles weren't approved isn't true either. I am a member of
>>>>several moderated newsgroups that still have active moderators but
>>>>negligible participation.

>>>Another problem.

>>You're ignoring what I'm saying. There is no evidence that the
>>advantage of moderation actually encourages an adequate amount of
>>on-topic posting.

>That is true, but it prevents trollposts and other abusive articles
>being approved.

So you don't agree with me. You keep claiming that it's sole advantage
is useful for spurring discussion.

You are ignoring that it is NOT useful for spurring discussion.

>Again, I don't think that a moderated group is good for the Go language
>and the RfC doesn't suggest it. The author pointed out that moderation
>was just a guess for last resort in the case the group will be flooded
>by off-topic posts.
>I don't think that will happen.

It's a real problem with the RFD and it shouldn't have been approved
with that language in it. I'm saying so explicitly given the lack of
any individual who might be qualified to moderate offering to do so.

Am 22.09.2023 um 21:07:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> A well-run News site implements spam countermeasures and TOSses users
> that violate AUP. A spammer will get TOSsed and therefore CANNOT get a
> proto article gated to the moderation address.

You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).

That means you can't rely on the news server operators to avoid
spam/trollposts being posted.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 22.09.2023 um 21:07:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>A well-run News site implements spam countermeasures and TOSses users
>>that violate AUP. A spammer will get TOSsed and therefore CANNOT get a
>>proto article gated to the moderation address.

>You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
>Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).

Thank you, Marco. It's the reason why I keep pointing out to you that
the only way to fight spam is to implement spam countermeasures, which
affect every newsgroup, and to TOS spammers. Moderation is a lot of work
which makes it an ineffective spam countermeasure. Implementing
moderation as a spam countermeasure is never a reason to propose
moderation.

You besmirched Paolo's reputation; Paolo did not allow spam, what with
strict posting limits.

>That means you can't rely on the news server operators to avoid
>spam/trollposts being posted.

You're flat out wrong to link spam with trolling. They are entirely
different types of off-topic articles.

You've been ridiculous about this whole thing. You never had a valid
point about using moderation as a spam countermeasure, but you keep
repeating it.

Am 23.09.2023 um 05:41:26 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> You besmirched Paolo's reputation; Paolo did not allow spam, what with
> strict posting limits.

In the German de.* hierarchy, a lot of trolls were using aioe. I told
him and he disabled crossposting in de.*, then the trolls still used
the services and posted to one group per message only.
The result: Many people had aioe in their killfile, because 50% of what
came out of it was simply trolling.

I know that trolling and spam are different, but at the end it is only
bullshit that people have to deal with it and want to get rid off. Only
one group were against that: troll itself.
Some still complain in some groups about that I made Hetzner close
Mixmin for some days until they disabled unauthenticated posting.

With the closure of aioe and Mixmin being read-only, the trolls
were mostly gone. Some tried other news servers like solani, but luckily
they banned them. That is a good server administration.

Now some trolls are using Google groups, but there they have the same
mail address all the time, so people can easily blacklist them.

I now agree with you that moderation is not a good idea to fight spam,
you convinced me.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>
>You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
>Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).

Yes, and THIS is the problem. Until this is fixed, spam will be around
no matter what filtering or moderation any server or newsgroup may use.

>That means you can't rely on the news server operators to avoid
>spam/trollposts being posted.

Until you CAN, we will have spam. If you cannot rely on server operators
to avoid spam, you should not accept traffic from those operators. This has
been remarkably effective at dealing with google-sourced spam, which is to
say almost all of the current spam.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

>>You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
>>Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).

>Yes, and THIS is the problem. Until this is fixed, spam will be around
>no matter what filtering or moderation any server or newsgroup may use.

Moderation remains largely irrelevant as a spam countermeasure because
it's labor intensive. No one volunteering to be a moderated should be
told, Oh! By the way, YOU'RE the one who gets to deal with spam!

You're a very long time poster. I just went through this whole thing
with Marco. Don't you also bring up moderation together with spam.

>>. . .

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>
>>>You know that there are news servers that don't care about it, e.g.
>>>Mixmin, neodome (in the past), aioe (only a bit, mayn trolls used it).
>
>>Yes, and THIS is the problem. Until this is fixed, spam will be around
>>no matter what filtering or moderation any server or newsgroup may use.
>
>Moderation remains largely irrelevant as a spam countermeasure because
>it's labor intensive. No one volunteering to be a moderated should be
>told, Oh! By the way, YOU'RE the one who gets to deal with spam!
>
>You're a very long time poster. I just went through this whole thing
>with Marco. Don't you also bring up moderation together with spam.

I'm just pointing out that no matter WHAT people do, spam is going to be a
problem until it is stopped at the source. Any other solution is just playing
wack-a-mole.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."