The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Tony

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
>note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
>have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
>appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
>situation.

I'm sorry to say that it became a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation
for me.  Almost all my posts started going astray, and so I lost
interest in reading uklm when I was unable to reply.  I felt that I
could not moderate effectively if I was not at least partly familiar
with the active threads.

One of 3 posts I made recently to uklm got through, so I may try
again, maybe using a different posting server.  Although I have a fair
knowlege of computers in general, my knowlege of the finer details of
NNTP is lacking, and in any case with no way to trace posts, knowlege
is not all that useful in determining either the cause or the
solution.

-- 
Cynic

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
> 
> Tony

Will you moderated wankers kindly fuck off back to your own shit-hole

Thanks,


TiT

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>The main bit of software is PGP Moose, ...

PGP Moose is software that monitors a moderated newsgroup and cancels
articles that purport to have been approved but have actually been
forged.  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
moderation screen to moderators and posts accepted messages to the
news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped.

It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
time.

If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
to another system.

Mike.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
>note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
>have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
>appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
>situation.

I'm sorry to say that it became a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation
for me.  Almost all my posts started going astray, and so I lost
interest in reading uklm when I was unable to reply.  I felt that I
could not moderate effectively if I was not at least partly familiar
with the active threads.

One of 3 posts I made recently to uklm got through, so I may try
again, maybe using a different posting server.  Although I have a fair
knowlege of computers in general, my knowlege of the finer details of
NNTP is lacking, and in any case with no way to trace posts, knowlege
is not all that useful in determining either the cause or the
solution.

-- 
Cynic

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
> 
> Tony

Will you moderated wankers kindly fuck off back to your own shit-hole

Thanks,


TiT

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>The main bit of software is PGP Moose, ...

PGP Moose is software that monitors a moderated newsgroup and cancels
articles that purport to have been approved but have actually been
forged.  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
moderation screen to moderators and posts accepted messages to the
news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped.

It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
time.

If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
to another system.

Mike.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
>note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
>have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
>appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
>situation.

I'm sorry to say that it became a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation
for me.  Almost all my posts started going astray, and so I lost
interest in reading uklm when I was unable to reply.  I felt that I
could not moderate effectively if I was not at least partly familiar
with the active threads.

One of 3 posts I made recently to uklm got through, so I may try
again, maybe using a different posting server.  Although I have a fair
knowlege of computers in general, my knowlege of the finer details of
NNTP is lacking, and in any case with no way to trace posts, knowlege
is not all that useful in determining either the cause or the
solution.

-- 
Cynic

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
> 
> Tony

Will you moderated wankers kindly fuck off back to your own shit-hole

Thanks,


TiT

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>The main bit of software is PGP Moose, ...

PGP Moose is software that monitors a moderated newsgroup and cancels
articles that purport to have been approved but have actually been
forged.  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
moderation screen to moderators and posts accepted messages to the
news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped.

It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
time.

If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
to another system.

Mike.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
>note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
>have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
>appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
>situation.

I'm sorry to say that it became a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation
for me.  Almost all my posts started going astray, and so I lost
interest in reading uklm when I was unable to reply.  I felt that I
could not moderate effectively if I was not at least partly familiar
with the active threads.

One of 3 posts I made recently to uklm got through, so I may try
again, maybe using a different posting server.  Although I have a fair
knowlege of computers in general, my knowlege of the finer details of
NNTP is lacking, and in any case with no way to trace posts, knowlege
is not all that useful in determining either the cause or the
solution.

-- 
Cynic

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
> 
> Tony

Will you moderated wankers kindly fuck off back to your own shit-hole

Thanks,


TiT

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>The main bit of software is PGP Moose, ...

PGP Moose is software that monitors a moderated newsgroup and cancels
articles that purport to have been approved but have actually been
forged.  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
moderation screen to moderators and posts accepted messages to the
news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped.

It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
time.

If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
to another system.

Mike.

Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:16:20 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

[uk.net.news.moderation only]

>  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
>articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
>moderation screen to moderators

It seems to work up to this point (posts that don't reach the mods are 
another matter, this is about posts that have been through moderation, 
auto or manual, not reaching the outside world).

> and posts accepted messages to the
>news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
>reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

Yep.  The bit we know least about is the interface immediately before an 
approved posting (auto or manual) is presented to (at the moment and for 
some while now)
===
news-peer-lilac.gradwell.net!not-for-mail
===

IIRC other people using gradwell's news servers have said the peering of 
text articles is good so I can't help thinking, once again, that the 
mail to news interface is the problem area.

>>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims
>>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the
>>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently
>>pear-shaped.

RA may be busy with other things for all I know but it might help if he 
investigated the mail to news bit out of curiosity.

>It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
>to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
>However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
>time.

I am inclined to believe that RA hasn't fiddled with the code and that 
the mail to news part is where the problem lies.

>If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
>to another system.

Or, more simply, arrange for multiple m2n, rather than one which often 
believes it is an Icelandic songstress.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
the curious incident of the dog in the night-time - Mark Haddon
Everyman - Philip Roth

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:36:47 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

> Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:16:20 
>  
> uk.net.news.moderation Mike 
>
> [uk.net.news.moderation only]

It's one thing to let folks know your wishes by announcing some setting of
the followup, but simply replying to a post in only a subset of the groups
to which that post had appears is not IMO best Usenet practise.

I'll cross-post this with the followup set, but I will also over-quote for
the benefit of UL readers who will have missed your post.

>>  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
>> articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
>> moderation screen to moderators
>
> It seems to work up to this point (posts that don't reach the mods are 
> another matter, this is about posts that have been through moderation, 
> auto or manual, not reaching the outside world).

Have there been any reports of auto-accepted posts disappearing?  That
part is news to me.

>> and posts accepted messages to the
>> news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
>> reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.
>
> Yep.  The bit we know least about is the interface immediately before an 
> approved posting (auto or manual) is presented to (at the moment and for 
> some while now)
> ===
> news-peer-lilac.gradwell.net!not-for-mail
> ===
>
> IIRC other people using gradwell's news servers have said the peering of 
> text articles is good so I can't help thinking, once again, that the 
> mail to news interface is the problem area.
>
>>> There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims
>>> he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the
>>> password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently
>>> pear-shaped.
>
> RA may be busy with other things for all I know but it might help if he 
> investigated the mail to news bit out of curiosity.
>
>> It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
>> to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
>> However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
>> time.
>
> I am inclined to believe that RA hasn't fiddled with the code and that 
> the mail to news part is where the problem lies.
>
>> If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
>> to another system.
>
> Or, more simply, arrange for multiple m2n, rather than one which often 
> believes it is an Icelandic songstress.

Followup set to unnm only.

Tony

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:50:19  
uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 

>Have there been any reports of auto-accepted posts disappearing?  That
>part is news to me.

Yes, please keep up.

BTW I think this group is the appropriate one for the discussion.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
the curious incident of the dog in the night-time - Mark Haddon
Everyman - Philip Roth

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 00:14:39 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

> Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:50:19  
> uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 
>
>> Have there been any reports of auto-accepted posts disappearing?  That
>> part is news to me.
>
> Yes, please keep up.

Keep up with what?  I started this thread and chose the subject and I
believe I've read all posts that followed, but I've not noticed any
mention of this before in this latest thread or in any earlier ones.

Have any posts by you which showed in the moderation screen as man-accept
failed to appear on customer-facing servers, or have you read reports by
others for which you can cite their Message-Id's.

> BTW I think this group is the appropriate one for the discussion.

I believe my setting of the followup shows my agreement.

Tony

Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:47:36  
uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 

>On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 00:14:39 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>> Sat, 7 Jul 2007 18:50:19 
>> uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 
>>
>>> Have there been any reports of auto-accepted posts disappearing?  That
>>> part is news to me.
>>
>> Yes, please keep up.
>
>Keep up with what?  I started this thread and chose the subject and I
>believe I've read all posts that followed, but I've not noticed any
>mention of this before in this latest thread or in any earlier ones.

You have missed earlier discussion.  Starting a thread doesn't mean you 
are the first person to have noticed something.

>Have any posts by you which showed in the moderation screen as man-accept
>failed to appear on customer-facing servers, or have you read reports by
>others for which you can cite their Message-Id's.

Yes.

>> BTW I think this group is the appropriate one for the discussion.
>
>I believe my setting of the followup shows my agreement.

NP

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
the curious incident of the dog in the night-time - Mark Haddon
Everyman - Philip Roth

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 01:09:23 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

> Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:47:36  
> uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 
>
>> Have any posts by you which showed in the moderation screen as man-accept
>> failed to appear on customer-facing servers, or have you read reports by
>> others for which you can cite their Message-Id's.
>
> Yes.

Since Wm... is unwilling or unable to answer the question, can anyone
point to any posts making mention of auto-accepted articles disappearing?
 
Tony

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.

Tony

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>

And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
hours...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.

Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
what response was issued.

Mike.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>
> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
> what response was issued.

The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5f3vt5F3bcu0dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
> news:bphp831o6vec5eoqsi6k0v87c54si0k1l8@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Two just finally made it through to news after five went AWOL.
>>
>
> And now one of mine has gone AWOL but maybe it will turn up in a few 
> hours...

And no, it didn't. And others have disappeared.  WTF?!!

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>"Mike"  wrote in message 
>news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>> what response was issued.
>
>The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php

Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
their good offices to suggest that other suitably
technically-competent people could be given the required access?

I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
diagnose NNTP-related issues.

I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
does anyone know its name?

Mike.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>
>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the
>> moderation software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server
>> and, if so, what response was issued.
>
> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public
> page http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php


IMVHO the fault line seems to lie in that the moderaters are apparently 
unable to pass these incidents 'up the line' for investigation & resolution. 
What is the nature of the relationship between the mods. & Richard ({R}UUM) 
?

-- 
Joe Lee

Mike wrote...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:12:54 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
> 
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:t0ip8318l1ri4t55g1hrmhlgt7bpo1d4m1@news.kempston.net...
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:01:24 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
>>> Do none of the moderators have access to the logs (that I assume are)
>>> produced by the moderation software?  What we need, in order to
>>> determine what's going wrong, is some record of whether the moderation
>>> software offered the aticles to Gradwell's news server and, if so,
>>> what response was issued.
>> The moderators don't have access to any logs other than on the public page
>> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_history_output.php
> 
> Is there only one person, then, who does have the access needed to
> investigate the problem?  If so, could the moderators perhaps use
> their good offices to suggest that other suitably
> technically-competent people could be given the required access?
> 
> I hesitate to offer but I'd be willing to help.  There are, of course,
> other contributors to uk.legal who have the necessary knowledge to
> diagnose NNTP-related issues.
> 
> I have an idea that the moderation software is open-source.  If so,
> does anyone know its name?

The main bit of software is PGP Moose, though I think the rest is, errm, 
bespoke. I think I recall the sysadmin saying he would open-source it, 
but that was a while ago. We are also somewhat dependent on the software 
running on and posting through an account at Gradwell (where presumably 
the logs lie).

There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
situation.

-- 
Adam Upham.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped. I will email the sysadmin to ask what's going on. Please 
>note there are currently about two and a half active moderators (who 
>have never claimed to know anything about NNTP) and they would probably 
>appreciate it if others also use their good offices to resolve the 
>situation.

I'm sorry to say that it became a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation
for me.  Almost all my posts started going astray, and so I lost
interest in reading uklm when I was unable to reply.  I felt that I
could not moderate effectively if I was not at least partly familiar
with the active threads.

One of 3 posts I made recently to uklm got through, so I may try
again, maybe using a different posting server.  Although I have a fair
knowlege of computers in general, my knowlege of the finer details of
NNTP is lacking, and in any case with no way to trace posts, knowlege
is not all that useful in determining either the cause or the
solution.

-- 
Cynic

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> The last 5 ULM manually accepted posts never make it to news.
> 
> Tony

Will you moderated wankers kindly fuck off back to your own shit-hole

Thanks,


TiT

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:25:51 +0100, Adam Upham
 wrote:

>The main bit of software is PGP Moose, ...

PGP Moose is software that monitors a moderated newsgroup and cancels
articles that purport to have been approved but have actually been
forged.  There will be some other software that accepts inbound
articles, processes them via the autopost list, presents the
moderation screen to moderators and posts accepted messages to the
news server.  It's that software that will reveal (or could be made to
reveal) whether or not the lost articles reached the news server.

>There is indeed only one person who can know what's going (who claims 
>he's not done anything at all for so long he's probably forgotten the 
>password), and there does indeed appear to be something currently 
>pear-shaped.

It would be better if a *group* of technical people could be appointed
to manage the moderation software and given appropriate access to it.
However good one person is, he's never going to be available all the
time.

If that can't be arranged, perhaps the solution is to move moderation
to another system.

Mike.

Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:16:20 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Mike 

[uk.net.news.moderation only]

>  There will be some other software that accepts