In article ,
kat  wrote:
>If foo is a hotmail user with little knowledge of all this - rather like 
>me - and gets this message, will they understand it?  [...]

If Control published the correct contact addresses they wouldn't need
to understand it, beyond the understanding that "it didn't work".

In the words of the urcm moderators' own web page, which should also
be on the page at usenet.org.uk:

   The moderators can be reached at
   urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/ 

   If there are problems contacting the moderators, then you may contact
   the moderators via postmaster (at) chiark.greenend.org.uk

This is a sensible way to deal with spamfiltering problem.  All
spamfiltering suffers from false positives.  The right approach is to
provide a way for people affected by an undesired rejection to achieve
their end goal (whether that be complaining to the moderators, posting
message, or whatever).

The stupid way to deal with spamfiltering false positives is to have a
huge argument about whether one spamfiltering technique is more
justifiable or more effective than another.  This is a stupid way to
deal with it because such discussions depend an enormous amount of
background including technical details, economics, moral philosophy,
and so forth, and can hardly ever produce clear consensus on the
answers.  IME making the attempt usually results in a useless flamewar
where no-one's mind is changed and even previously friendly people end
up hurling insults at each other.

>Sure, there may be some sort of explanation somewhere but just now all I 
>know is what is on the charter page.

I don't understand why Control won't put the correct information,
which would allow any user to solve these kind of problems, on
usenet.org.uk.

-- 
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

Ian Jackson  wrote:
> In article ,
> kat  wrote:
>>If foo is a hotmail user with little knowledge of all this - rather like 
>>me - and gets this message, will they understand it?  [...]
> 
> If Control published the correct contact addresses they wouldn't need
> to understand it, beyond the understanding that "it didn't work".
> 
> In the words of the urcm moderators' own web page, which should also
> be on the page at usenet.org.uk:
> 
>   The moderators can be reached at
>   urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/ 
> 
>   If there are problems contacting the moderators, then you may contact
>   the moderators via postmaster (at) chiark.greenend.org.uk
> 
> This is a sensible way to deal with spamfiltering problem.  All
> spamfiltering suffers from false positives.  The right approach is to
> provide a way for people affected by an undesired rejection to achieve
> their end goal (whether that be complaining to the moderators, posting
> message, or whatever).
> 
> The stupid way to deal with spamfiltering false positives is to have a
> huge argument about whether one spamfiltering technique is more
> justifiable or more effective than another.  This is a stupid way to
> deal with it because such discussions depend an enormous amount of
> background including technical details, economics, moral philosophy,
> and so forth, and can hardly ever produce clear consensus on the
> answers.  IME making the attempt usually results in a useless flamewar
> where no-one's mind is changed and even previously friendly people end
> up hurling insults at each other.
> 
>>Sure, there may be some sort of explanation somewhere but just now all I 
>>know is what is on the charter page.
> 
> I don't understand why Control won't put the correct information,
> which would allow any user to solve these kind of problems, on
> usenet.org.uk.
 
So if I may summarise.

Despite there being a usable process in place for providing moderated
groups which works fine for groups as complex and dynamic as ulm, you
decided that you are more technically competent and that you wanted to use
your own infrastructure.

Using your own infrastructure means that various people in the uk.*
hierarchy, both users and people who might be considered administrators
have to follow a different process than the other moderated groups.

You feel this is okay, and you're whining that it's not working
flawlessly.

Where-as if you had just done 'what others have done', then you'd have a
solution which worked.  You could still use your infrastructure to handle
the mail and the moderation if you just turned down the SAUCE settings.
You wouldn't have to publish multiple addresses.  You wouldn't have to go
'outside' the setup used for other successful groups in any way.

That, Ian Jackson, describes exactly why you were unable to join the UK
Voting organisation, why you are unfit to be on the committee and why you
receive so much resistance to any idea you present here, regardless of its
worth.

Please, please, look closely at the full situation and ask why you had to
use your own setup and not the one that is already proven to work.


-- 
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 03 Nov 2009 11:30:55 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>kat  wrote:
>>If foo is a hotmail user with little knowledge of all this - rather like 
>>me - and gets this message, will they understand it?  [...]
>
>If Control published the correct contact addresses they wouldn't need
>to understand it, beyond the understanding that "it didn't work".
>
>In the words of the urcm moderators' own web page, which should also
>be on the page at usenet.org.uk:
>
>   The moderators can be reached at
>   urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/ 


Admit it Mr Jackson - you are holding two fingers up to uk.* users,
the Committee,  Charles (to whom -  thanks for investigation and the
explanation), and all Hotmail users.


Why not just do as Charles has suggested?

jms  said:

> On 03 Nov 2009 11:30:55 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> kat  wrote:
>>> If foo is a hotmail user with little knowledge of all this - rather
>>> like me - and gets this message, will they understand it?  [...]
>>
>> If Control published the correct contact addresses they wouldn't need
>> to understand it, beyond the understanding that "it didn't work".
>>
>> In the words of the urcm moderators' own web page, which should also
>> be on the page at usenet.org.uk:
>>
>>   The moderators can be reached at
>>   urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/
>
>
> Admit it Mr Jackson - you are holding two fingers up to uk.* users,
> the Committee,  Charles (to whom -  thanks for investigation and the
> explanation), and all Hotmail users.
>
>
> Why not just do as Charles has suggested?

That would be too easy - and humiliating.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On 03 Nov 2009 11:30:55 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article ,
>kat  wrote:
>>If foo is a hotmail user with little knowledge of all this - rather like 
>>me - and gets this message, will they understand it?  [...]
>
>If Control published the correct contact addresses they wouldn't need
>to understand it, beyond the understanding that "it didn't work".
>
>In the words of the urcm moderators' own web page, which should also
>be on the page at usenet.org.uk:
>
>   The moderators can be reached at
>   urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>   http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/ 
>
>   If there are problems contacting the moderators, then you may contact
>   the moderators via postmaster (at) chiark.greenend.org.uk

The information which belongs on usenet.org.uk is the formal, official
information relating to the group. That's what was voted on in the
CFV. If you want to run your own web page giving information about the
moderation system, that's fine, but it doesn't replace the basic
information on the official repository.

>This is a sensible way to deal with spamfiltering problem.  All
>spamfiltering suffers from false positives.  The right approach is to
>provide a way for people affected by an undesired rejection to achieve
>their end goal (whether that be complaining to the moderators, posting
>message, or whatever).
>
>The stupid way to deal with spamfiltering false positives is to have a
>huge argument about whether one spamfiltering technique is more
>justifiable or more effective than another. 

That is such an extraordinarily stupid thing to say that I find it
hard to believe that even you wuld say it. Any anti-spam system stands
or falls on its effectiveness, and that means minimising the amount of
false positives and false negatives. If it becomes known that a
particular form of filtering is less effective than another to the
point that it is practiually useless, then only a fool would ignore
that evience and refuse to discuss it.

>>Sure, there may be some sort of explanation somewhere but just now all I 
>>know is what is on the charter page.
>
>I don't understand why Control won't put the correct information,
>which would allow any user to solve these kind of problems, on
>usenet.org.uk.

Because that's not the place to put non-canonical information.
If what you're now saying is that the only reliable way to contact the
urcm moderators is to use postmaster@chiark.greenend.org.uk instead of
the official address, then it can easily be arranged for the official
address to forward to that instead of to the one you've previously set
up. Since you seem to be encouraging that to happen anyway, it seems
rather pointless to have an address that doesn't work for everyone
when you've got another one that does.

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