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.

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

"Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress> wrote in message 
news:468da478$0$27855$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 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) ?

The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "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?!! 

Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

Tony

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal wrote...
> The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
> moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
> each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
> of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
> or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
> months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

Do you believe this is something that could usefully be improved?  If 
so, how?

At present, it seems that we are reliant on one sysadmin to address 
technical problems.  And that if he were to die or leave the country, 
there would be no way whatsoever to put things right.

I do not wish to imply any criticism of the sysadmin himself, nor of the 
moderators.  Just of the setup under which they work.

-- 
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:5ei1939i8qm3u0kmmhnrmsjn742n5v5m7q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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?!!
>
> Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
> posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
> have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
> read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
> to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

I can't remember any  but that's not to say it hasn't happened...

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
>moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
>each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
>of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
>or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
>months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

There is certainly a problem here, and we may be heading for unnc
territory in order to get it fixed if it can't be resolved in the
meantime. 

Historically, a moderated newsgroup had a single moderator, who was
fully responsible for all the technical aspects of moderation as well
as the decision-making side of things. Over time, the use of automated
moderation systems as well as moderation by team (and, in some cases,
elected moderators) has grown in popularity, but a fundamental
principle of moderation is still the presence of a single point of
contact - either an individual working alone, or a team of people
acting in committee - which is ultimately responsible for all aspects
of the group's operation. Moderating a newsgroup is *not* just about
deciding which posts are approved and which are not, it is about
managing the system by which those decisions are implemented.

It seems to me that ulm's moderation panel fails on both of those
points. The moderators, however well they may be performing their
duties individually, are not functioning as a cohesive group and, even
if they were, they would not have the ability to resolve technical
issues with the system.

At the very least, there should be a requirement for all moderators
(and the sysadmin, if the sysadmin is not also a moderator) to remain
in contact with each other, either by means of a mailing list or some
kind of messaging system on the admin website, to "check in" regularly
with the group and to notify the others of any extended absence. And
the moderation team should include at least one person (preferably,
the head moderator) with full access to the moderation system - even
if they didn't write it, they need to be able to debug it or give
access to someone else to do so if necessary. 

It isn't necessary for everyone to know how this works internally in
the moderation team. All that's necessary for the rest of us to know
is that if we send an email to the contact address listed at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html then it will reach
someone who is able to take full responsibility for resolving any
problems reported with the technical aspects of moderation. If that's
not the case, then the group is not being correctly moderated. If the
group isn't being correctly moderated, resolving the problem may
require a change of moderator(s) and/or the charter in order to ensure
that effective systems are put in place.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:03:42 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
> All that's necessary for the rest of us to know
> is that if we send an email to the contact address listed at
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html then it will reach
> someone who is able to take full responsibility for resolving any
> problems reported with the technical aspects of moderation.
 
Where do emails end up currently, if sent to that contact address
[uk-legal-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk] ?

-- 
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:29:55  
uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 

>Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
>posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
>have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
>read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
>to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

Do you have reason (other than someone else's claim in an unspecified 
group) to believe that man-accepted and auto-accepted articles are 
treated differently at the injection to news point?  I know this wasn't 
quite what you were asking but I think it germane to the discussion that 
I present the same question another way.

If someone can show that auto-accepted articles *always* appear and that 
sometimes man-accepted articles don't we'd have something to work on. 
e.g. what is the difference between the headers of auto-accepted vs. 
man-accepted articles? ; what is the difference between one man-accepted 
article appearing in public vs. the same man-accepted article not 
appearing in public?

Personally I think this is a red herring and until we can see the code 
that happens after acceptance (manual or auto) and the rules for the m2n 
we won't be able to progress.

The Swift recourse is, of course, to set all posts to auto and see if 
any go missing.

-- 
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 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

"Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress> wrote in message 
news:468da478$0$27855$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 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) ?

The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "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?!! 

Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

Tony

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal wrote...
> The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
> moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
> each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
> of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
> or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
> months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

Do you believe this is something that could usefully be improved?  If 
so, how?

At present, it seems that we are reliant on one sysadmin to address 
technical problems.  And that if he were to die or leave the country, 
there would be no way whatsoever to put things right.

I do not wish to imply any criticism of the sysadmin himself, nor of the 
moderators.  Just of the setup under which they work.

-- 
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:5ei1939i8qm3u0kmmhnrmsjn742n5v5m7q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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?!!
>
> Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
> posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
> have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
> read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
> to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

I can't remember any  but that's not to say it hasn't happened...

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
>moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
>each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
>of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
>or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
>months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

There is certainly a problem here, and we may be heading for unnc
territory in order to get it fixed if it can't be resolved in the
meantime. 

Historically, a moderated newsgroup had a single moderator, who was
fully responsible for all the technical aspects of moderation as well
as the decision-making side of things. Over time, the use of automated
moderation systems as well as moderation by team (and, in some cases,
elected moderators) has grown in popularity, but a fundamental
principle of moderation is still the presence of a single point of
contact - either an individual working alone, or a team of people
acting in committee - which is ultimately responsible for all aspects
of the group's operation. Moderating a newsgroup is *not* just about
deciding which posts are approved and which are not, it is about
managing the system by which those decisions are implemented.

It seems to me that ulm's moderation panel fails on both of those
points. The moderators, however well they may be performing their
duties individually, are not functioning as a cohesive group and, even
if they were, they would not have the ability to resolve technical
issues with the system.

At the very least, there should be a requirement for all moderators
(and the sysadmin, if the sysadmin is not also a moderator) to remain
in contact with each other, either by means of a mailing list or some
kind of messaging system on the admin website, to "check in" regularly
with the group and to notify the others of any extended absence. And
the moderation team should include at least one person (preferably,
the head moderator) with full access to the moderation system - even
if they didn't write it, they need to be able to debug it or give
access to someone else to do so if necessary. 

It isn't necessary for everyone to know how this works internally in
the moderation team. All that's necessary for the rest of us to know
is that if we send an email to the contact address listed at
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html then it will reach
someone who is able to take full responsibility for resolving any
problems reported with the technical aspects of moderation. If that's
not the case, then the group is not being correctly moderated. If the
group isn't being correctly moderated, resolving the problem may
require a change of moderator(s) and/or the charter in order to ensure
that effective systems are put in place.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:03:42 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
> All that's necessary for the rest of us to know
> is that if we send an email to the contact address listed at
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html then it will reach
> someone who is able to take full responsibility for resolving any
> problems reported with the technical aspects of moderation.
 
Where do emails end up currently, if sent to that contact address
[uk-legal-moderated-request (at) usenet.org.uk] ?

-- 
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:29:55  
uk.net.news.moderation Anthony R. Gold 

>Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
>posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
>have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
>read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
>to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

Do you have reason (other than someone else's claim in an unspecified 
group) to believe that man-accepted and auto-accepted articles are 
treated differently at the injection to news point?  I know this wasn't 
quite what you were asking but I think it germane to the discussion that 
I present the same question another way.

If someone can show that auto-accepted articles *always* appear and that 
sometimes man-accepted articles don't we'd have something to work on. 
e.g. what is the difference between the headers of auto-accepted vs. 
man-accepted articles? ; what is the difference between one man-accepted 
article appearing in public vs. the same man-accepted article not 
appearing in public?

Personally I think this is a red herring and until we can see the code 
that happens after acceptance (manual or auto) and the rules for the m2n 
we won't be able to progress.

The Swift recourse is, of course, to set all posts to auto and see if 
any go missing.

-- 
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 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

"Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress> wrote in message 
news:468da478$0$27855$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 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) ?

The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
> "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?!! 

Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

Tony

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal wrote...
> The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
> moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
> each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
> of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
> or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
> months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

Do you believe this is something that could usefully be improved?  If 
so, how?

At present, it seems that we are reliant on one sysadmin to address 
technical problems.  And that if he were to die or leave the country, 
there would be no way whatsoever to put things right.

I do not wish to imply any criticism of the sysadmin himself, nor of the 
moderators.  Just of the setup under which they work.

-- 
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.plus.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:5ei1939i8qm3u0kmmhnrmsjn742n5v5m7q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:15:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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?!!
>
> Someone in another group claimed their have been documented reports of
> posts which appeared in the moderation log screen as auto-post but that
> have thereupon disappeared.  Does anyone recall such a complaint?  I've
> read about losses both on their way towards the mods and also subsequent
> to man-accept, but I don't recall claims of losses to any auto-posts.

I can't remember any  but that's not to say it hasn't happened...

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:11:17 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>The nature of the relationship is that the mods individually log on and 
>moderate posts when they feel like it. They don't keep in close contact with 
>each other or with Richard (as sysadmin) and only rarely are there exchanges 
>of email between them. Therefore if a moderator or the sysadmin were to die 
>or leave the country, the others would probably not become aware of it for 
>months or maybe years or maybe not at all.

There is certainly a problem here, and we may be heading for unnc
territory in order to get it fixed if it can't be resolved in the
meantime. 

Historically, a moderated newsgroup had a single moderat