Robert Prins <robert@prino.org> wrote:
>On 2023-09-23 14:48, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> writes:

>>>Ok, that "comment" about maybe in the future making it moderated is at
>>>the worse case scenario, not because someone posted someone else does
>>>not like, also as you all know making it moderated is a hard task to do
>>>and maintain so, as some of you mention as long google groups is not
>>>touching it the rest of us are well versed in technical and nettiquete
>>>ways.

>>Let me make the point more clearly: it is not going to be possible to
>>switch an existing non-moderated group to moderated in a reliable
>>way. If there is ever to be a moderated group, it needs to be a
>>_different_ group.

>>>Sor where I am going with this? the group will not be moderated that was
>>>just a comment I included in the first propposal just to keep the option
>>>open in a very bad case of really bad off-topic that will get to the
>>>point is will derail the topic (I will much doub this will happen) so
>>>just ignore that we can remove that if you guys feel better, but as you
>>>guys can see that is only in a comment not really how is going to end
>>>up.

>>The option of changing it to a different status basically does not
>>exist, and putting it in the charter that it does would be futile.

>It does exists, comp.lang.asm.x86 was changed to moderated (more than)
>a couple of years ago, also to weed out the excessive amounts of spam
>and off-topic garbage posted to it at the time!

We are all aware that tale did a few moderation-in-place newgroup
messages but it was thought NOT to be practical for all the reasons stated.

In the example here, you aren't providing factual information.

August 1, 1997

I didn't even recall this one. I had to look it up.