On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:50:22 +0000,
    Tony  wrote:
> In uk.net.news.management, Tim Woodall  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:01:59 +0000,
>>    Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:52:59 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is what really happens:
>>> [snip]
>>>>... 82.0.173.107 is listed in zen.spamhaus.org
>>>
>>>
>>> See http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=82.0.173.107
>>>
>>
>>Yes. I know why it's happening.
>
> When did you alert the committee?
>
My first post to unnc (crossposted to urc) that I can see was
Message-ID: 
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:37:08 +0100

Of course, I cannot[1] email them and they don't publish an alternative
address.

Tim.


[1] Yes, I know I can if I reconfigure my system.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/

In article ,
Charles Lindsey  wrote:
>In  Tim Woodall  writes:
>>My opinion:
>>What @chiark.greenend.org.uk is doing is wrong.
>>What @usenet.org.uk is doing is wrong.
>
>@usenet.ork.uk (for which I am the postmaster) is doing nothing.

I'll assume you meant to write `usenet.org.uk' (not `ork').

>The mail system at gradwell.net (over which we have no control) DOES
>choose not to accept mail from dynamic IP addresses. It does so in common
>with a very large number of other service providers.

This makes no sense:
  usenet.org.uk MX 10 mail-in-2.lb.gradwell.net
  usenet.org.uk MX 10 mail-in-1.lb.gradwell.net

The postmaster is the person with technical responsibility and control
of how the mail is handled.  usenet.org.uk mail is handled by
Gradwell.  If you have no control over how Gradwell do it then you
are not the postmaster.

This kind of thing is one reason why it's unacceptable that you insist
on not publishing the moderators' official contact addresses as
defined by the moderators.  Those contact addresses are handled
entirely by systems which are under the political and technical
control of the moderators.  The aliases you insist on publishing
instead aren't even under your control!

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 03 Nov 2009 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>
>This kind of thing is one reason why it's unacceptable that you insist
>on not publishing the moderators' official contact addresses as
>defined by the moderators.

You still don't get it, do you? The official contact address is the
one associated with the creation of the group within uk.*. If you
don't want the official address to be handled by usenet.org.uk, then
create the group in a different hierarchy.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Owen Dunn  wrote:
> Mark Goodge  writes:
> 
>> On 03 Nov 2009 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>This kind of thing is one reason why it's unacceptable that you insist
>>>on not publishing the moderators' official contact addresses as
>>>defined by the moderators.
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you? The official contact address is the
>> one associated with the creation of the group within uk.*. If you
>> don't want the official address to be handled by usenet.org.uk, then
>> create the group in a different hierarchy.
> 
> Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
> added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.

Since I don't see there being a problem, maybe you should submit the RFD?
Or Ian?  Or someone else who feels there's an issue?

It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk addresses,
if you feel it should be optional, RFD it.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:06:48 +0000, Owen Dunn
 wrote:

>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>
>> It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk
>> addresses,
>
>Oh, I agree.  However, since it's not written down anywhere that this
>must be so, nobody is going to know it's obligatory.  You can't
>expect people to obey rules you've not told them about.

You are obviously right, however I'm not sure how practical it is to
attempt to full document what is standard, working convention.  A
convention that is generally accepted, and works.

This is all slightly academic though, as the real issue is not really
anything to do with the established convention - it's to do with some
odd crusade by one person.

Basically, NOTHING to do with the creation of urcm went right,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  Just about EVERY ASPECT OF THE CREATION was
hassle and NOTHING had to be that way.  The ENTIRE cause of all the
issues was NOTHING to do with anyone or anything other that IAN
JACKSON.

The sooner this boil on the arse of usenet is lanced, the better, we
can all get back to doing what we do, with a perfectly well
functioning hierarchy devoid of fuckwits.

Grr...

That's better

Normal service etc...

.m  writes:

> You are obviously right, however I'm not sure how practical it is to
> attempt to full document what is standard, working convention.  A
> convention that is generally accepted, and works.

That seems a bit feeble to me. Surely procedures are not so byzantine
that they could not be documented adequately?
 
Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

Matthew Vernon  wrote:
> .m  writes:
> 
>> You are obviously right, however I'm not sure how practical it is to
>> attempt to full document what is standard, working convention.  A
>> convention that is generally accepted, and works.
 
> That seems a bit feeble to me. Surely procedures are not so byzantine
> that they could not be documented adequately?

Feel free to RFD anything you think is missing.

I've said before, and I still stand by it, that we have a good general set
of guidelines along with some accepted default behaviour.  If we document
the default behaviour then it restricts our options.

You end up writing guidelines which say, you SHOULD use a usenet.org.uk
address unless you have a good reason not to.  Then people want to know
what constitutes a good reason, so you go around a loop and add 4 examples.
Then someone later wants to do something you didn't think about earlier,
but the rules don't allow it.  So you either update the rules or let them
get away with an exception this time.

All of this to support a process that already works, most of the time, for
most of the people.

It worked in this case, but took longer than some people think it should
*and* the person involved wanted to use all of their own infrastructure and
not follow previous convention.

Had Ian just turned down spam checking on the single usenet.org.uk e-mail
address there WOULD BE NO ISSUE.

Instead, we're at risk of inventing and debating pointless rules which add
no value long-term to support a single persons crusade to use their own mail
infrastructure for everything.

Can you accept any point of that as reasonable?

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

In uk.net.news.management, Owen Dunn  wrote:

>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>
>> It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk
>> addresses,
>
>Oh, I agree.  However, since it's not written down anywhere that this
>must be so, nobody is going to know it's obligatory.  You can't
>expect people to obey rules you've not told them about.

But you can expect people to follow normal conventions unless they have *a
good reason not to do so*.  And Ian doesn't.

Ever.

He insists on implementing his own wheel every single time a round device
is needed, even though the hierarchy he's dropping wheels in already has
some perfectly good ones.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:13:03 +0000, Owen Dunn put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Mark Goodge  writes:
>
>> On 03 Nov 2009 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>This kind of thing is one reason why it's unacceptable that you insist
>>>on not publishing the moderators' official contact addresses as
>>>defined by the moderators.
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you? The official contact address is the
>> one associated with the creation of the group within uk.*. If you
>> don't want the official address to be handled by usenet.org.uk, then
>> create the group in a different hierarchy.
>
>Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
>added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.

I think it might be worth RFDing a change to enshrine this practice in
the documentation, yes.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:06:48 +0000, Owen Dunn put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>
>> It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk
>> addresses,
>
>Oh, I agree.  However, since it's not written down anywhere that this
>must be so, nobody is going to know it's obligatory.  You can't
>expect people to obey rules you've not told them about.

It's never previously been challenged. The reason it's that way is
technical, rather than regulatory - any address at moderators.isc.org
for a moderated group in uk.* forwards to the equivalent address at
usenet.org.uk, and this is how it's been ever since usenet.org.uk was
set up. So the submission address @usenet.org.uk *must* exist for the
group to work (unless the moderators really want to try to get the
direct address into every moderation.conf all over the world, or
persuade the administrators of moderators.isc.org to change their
policy). And, given that it's a long-standing principle in Usenet that
the canonical contact address for the moderators(s) of a group is in
the form of group-name-request@, to parallel the submission address of
group-name@, this has always been accepted as the "official" contact
address and treated as such by those who run usenet.org.uk. 

As I said, we've never previously had a situation where someone has
tried to challenge this and insist on having the destination address
rather than the canonical form published on the website, so the need
to mention it in the guidelines has never previously been an issue.

As a general rule, I'm not entirely happy with enshrining
long-standing technical practice into the guidelines, since there may
well be occasions where there is a genuine need to do things
differently. But I don't think that "I want to do it my way" is a
sufficiently genuine reason, so it may be necessary to at least state
the principle in the guidelines but give the committee the power to
ignore it if necessary. So I have been considering an RFD to do this,
but I'm not going to issue it until after the elections are complete.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On 04 Nov 2009 14:46:23 +0000, Matthew Vernon put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>.m  writes:
>
>> You are obviously right, however I'm not sure how practical it is to
>> attempt to full document what is standard, working convention.  A
>> convention that is generally accepted, and works.
>
>That seems a bit feeble to me. Surely procedures are not so byzantine
>that they could not be documented adequately?

Previously, we haven't had any significant documentation of anything
that isn't formally required by the guidelines. That's partly because
it's never really been a matter of dispute, partly because a lot of
the technical stuff is already documented in Big 8 and we haven't felt
it necessary to duplicate that, and partly because of a belief that
only official (ie, created by RFD/CFV) documents belong on the
official website.

If someone were to take the time to write some documentation which
describes current best practices and technical requirements as they
apply to uk.*, then, provided it was of sufficient quality, I'd be
quite happy to see it published on usenet.org.uk along with the formal
guidelines - a library of material related to uk.* could well be quite
useful. But I'm not necessarily going to volunteer to write it, and I
don't think it's helpful for people to complain abut the lack of it if
they're not willing to contribut themselves.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>> Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
>> added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.
>
>Since I don't see there being a problem, maybe you should submit the RFD?
>Or Ian?  Or someone else who feels there's an issue?
>
>It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk addresses,
>if you feel it should be optional, RFD it.

It's OK to make a rule that isn't in the guidelines, then?  Who makes
this rule?

I've been told time and time again that the users of uk usenet make
the rules.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:52:24 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

> If we document
>the default behaviour then it restricts our options.

And yet, when I tried to point out that the details in the guidelines
were such that it de facto allowed the committee to impose their will
on the users of uk. usent I got shouted at and told I was being very
stupid.

Undocumented 'default behaviour' is not something that is in the
guidelines.  

According to what I have been told, time and time again, the committee
is only neutral and is only applying the guidelines.  

Etc.  

Cue more insults ...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:14:52 +0000, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>>Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
>>added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.
>
>I think it might be worth RFDing a change to enshrine this practice in
>the documentation, yes.

Ok, now you're being reasonable.

Damn.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:20:40 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>Undocumented 'default behaviour' is not something that is in the
>guidelines.  

Remember why MacBurgerChain had to put 'Beware, contents are hot' or
somesuch on their coffee cups?  Ask yourself why bags of peanuts have
a warning that the contents may contain nuts?  Why does it not
explicitly say on every pack of sparklers that sticking one up your
arse and lighting it may cause harm?  Why does my laptop not have a
sticker on it saying prolonged use may cause RSI?  Why didn't the
manual that came with my chainsaw warn against using as a sex toy?

You can document lots of things, but 'stating the obvious', or writing
the definitive history of 'why things are' just for the one occasion
when some fuckwit decides to tamper with every single part, without
exception, of a process really isn't going to help.

I personally feel that documenting for fuckwittery is contrary to the
laws of Darwin.

>According to what I have been told, time and time again, the committee
>is only neutral and is only applying the guidelines.  

If you or anyone else wants to change something, you are free to do
so.  You'll then see if everyone else agrees with you.

>Cue more insults ... 

Fuck off flappy lips.

(Oh, I thought that cue was an instruction.  Perhaps you meant queue?)

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>> Then, arguably, you should submit an RFD suggesting that this rule be
>>> added to the guidelines.  'Cos it aten't there at the moment.
>>
>>Since I don't see there being a problem, maybe you should submit the RFD?
>>Or Ian?  Or someone else who feels there's an issue?
>>
>>It makes perfect sense to me that uk.* groups use @usenet.org.uk addresses,
>>if you feel it should be optional, RFD it.
>
>It's OK to make a rule that isn't in the guidelines, then?  Who makes
>this rule?
>
>I've been told time and time again that the users of uk usenet make
>the rules.

You're trolling aren't you?

1. we RFD stuff we care about
2. stuff we don't care about we let the committee rule on
3. when we don't like it, we RFD it

We know that's how it works.
When will the four people trying to get onto the committee to change things
realise?

If they want change, they must raise RFD's.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:44:59 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>>I've been told time and time again that the users of uk usenet make
>>the rules.
>
>You're trolling aren't you?

No, I really am not.  I tried to raise the issue that there are things
in the guidelines which are not totally neutral that the committee can
make rulings on without being bound by the guidelines.

While I accept the answer that we try to make sure that those we elect
to the committe are neutral, sensible and knowleadgable (which is fair
enough), there is the room for misuse ie there is the possibility that
the committee *could* be persuing a personal agenda. 

Now, Ian Jackson felt that his solution was better than the commonly
accepted default solution.  

There was *no requirement* that his solution, while not the default
solution, was wrong.

While a whole lot of ire was directed at him, I've seen very few
answers that have been unemotional in their discussion of the
technicalities of which is the best technical solution - Jackson's -
or the default solution. 

What I have seen is an awful lot of flack thrown at Jackson.  While
his answers have been pedantic and 'arrogant' in that to him, it is
obvious that his is the best solution, very few people have actually
gotten into a non-personal discussion of the situation.  

Or whatever. I mean, there's hundreds and hundreds of back posts, very
few without insult.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:44:59 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>If they want change, they must raise RFD's.

Oh yeah, I forgot this:  There is nothing in the guidelines that says
Jackson's solution is wrong.

I say this to the committee:  If you want to prove that it is wrong,
raise RFDs.

There.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:59:48 +0000, Cherry Chapstick
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote:

>Oh yeah, I forgot this:  There is nothing in the guidelines that says
>Jackson's solution is wrong.

It is more 'not right' that 'not wrong'.

>I say this to the committee:  If you want to prove that it is wrong,
>raise RFDs.

I don't think the committee need to do anything of the sort.  You,
Jacko and whoever else is silly enough to continue footstamping and
having 'look at me' hissyfits will find that's not the best way to get
things done.  But I guess raising an RFD to molish that which doesn't
need molishing would really be another jewel in the crown of
fuckwittery for you guys.

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:44:59 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>>I've been told time and time again that the users of uk usenet make
>>>the rules.
>>
>>You're trolling aren't you?
>

>There was *no requirement* that his solution, while not the default
>solution, was wrong.

And if it worked, we would all be very quiet.  And if hadn't spent a month
moaning about the speed of the process which got him the group, we'd all be
very quiet.

But his solution doesn't work, it blocks mail from people it shouldn't
block mail from, and he HAS spent a month whinging.

>While a whole lot of ire was directed at him, I've seen very few
>answers that have been unemotional in their discussion of the
>technicalities of which is the best technical solution - Jackson's -
>or the default solution. 

The one that works for most users.  i.e. not his.

>What I have seen is an awful lot of flack thrown at Jackson.  While
>his answers have been pedantic and 'arrogant' in that to him, it is
>obvious that his is the best solution, very few people have actually
>gotten into a non-personal discussion of the situation.  

The best?  It rejects, out of hand, all mail from hotmail users.  How is
that good?

>Or whatever. I mean, there's hundreds and hundreds of back posts, very
>few without insult. 

True, let's fix that.

Fuck off.

Better? Worse?
-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

In uk.net.news.management, Cherry Chapstick <azure@invalid.really.really>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:44:59 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>If they want change, they must raise RFD's.
>
>Oh yeah, I forgot this:  There is nothing in the guidelines that says
>Jackson's solution is wrong.
>
>I say this to the committee:  If you want to prove that it is wrong,
>raise RFDs.

The committee can't raise RFD's.

People on the committee can, as well as those who are readers of uk.* can.

See?

The COMMITTEE has no collective power to raise RFD's.

If you want one person to raise an RFD the one you're most likely to be
able to encourage is you.

Because it appears the people who have in the past put in the effort to
raise charter change RFD's don't think this issue is worth pushing.

If YOU want change, RFD it.  As someone accused 'us' not long back, we're
quite happy with the status quo, because 99% of the time, for 99% of the
people it works.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:06:13 +0000, .m  wrote:

>>I say this to the committee:  If you want to prove that it is wrong,
>>raise RFDs.
>
>I don't think the committee need to do anything of the sort.  You,
>Jacko and whoever else is silly enough to continue footstamping and
>having 'look at me' hissyfits will find that's not the best way to get
>things done

I'm not footstamping.  I've just reiterated what members of the
committee have told me: If you want a change to the guidelines, raise
an RFD.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:08:51 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>
>If YOU want change, RFD it.  As someone accused 'us' not long back, we're
>quite happy with the status quo, because 99% of the time, for 99% of the
>people it works.

But I don't want the change.  According to the discussions that I've
read, you, and the people that you see as on 'your side' agains the
evil interloper, Ian Jackson, do.  His choice of email address was not
contradictory to anything in the guidelines. 

If you want the change why don't you RFD it?

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:08:51 +0000, Tony <tony@darkstorm.invalid>
wrote:

>The committee can't raise RFD's.

Well, actually, to save some going through the roolz again, there's
nothing stopping the Committee collectively raising an RFD, apart from
a few undocumented reasons;

1.  Who would handle appeals?
2.  It's against convention.
3.  It's also not good governance.
4.  The Electorate would laugh us out of the pub.
5.  It's not 'our job', collectively, to fiddle.

I think although all equally valid, point 4 is the most important.
The 'community' like the idea of the Committee sitting quietly in a
corner eating biscuits and not meddling in their affairs.  I agree
with them/us.