Do email submissions to uk-legal-moderated at usenet org uk appear in
the queue as seen on moderation.org.uk within minutes of receipt ?

If so, there is a problem -

10/10/07 19:11 212.84.103.205
Subject: Does this breach sub judice ?

didn't appear.

I will resend now and keep resending. The email addrees will be fake -
me@privacy.net but I assume that almost everybodies are. It's not
getting caught out by email address verification is it ?

I'm temporarily without a newsgroup service, so I'm not familiar with
using posting via email.

Daytona

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:47:59 -0700, Daytona 
wrote:

> I'm temporarily without a newsgroup service, so I'm not familiar with
> using posting via email.

Can you not use Google Groups just as you did for this message?

Tony

On 11 Oct, 09:45, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:47:59 -0700, Daytona 
> wrote:
>
> > I'm temporarily without a newsgroup service, so I'm not familiar with
> > using posting via email.
>
> Can you not use Google Groups just as you did for this message?

Fair point - I'm whitelisted, but due to the potential effects of it's
content I would like the post given the once over by a human <g> ! I'm
sure that I've couched it in acceptable terms but naturally don't want
to get anyone in any trouble.

Removing my whitelist status may be a good idea.

Cheers

Daytona

On 11 Oct, 09:55, Daytona  wrote:
> On 11 Oct, 09:45, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:47:59 -0700, Daytona 
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm temporarily without a newsgroup service, so I'm not familiar with
> > > using posting via email.
>
> > Can you not use Google Groups just as you did for this message?
>
> Fair point - I'm whitelisted, but due to the potential effects of it's
> content I would like the post given the once over by a human <g>

I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that emails undergo manual
moderation ?

Resend details -

11/11/7 08:38 212.84.100.226 - Not visible in queue at 09:58

11/11/7 09:59 212.84.100.226

Daytona

"Daytona"  wrote in message 
news:1192093341.080401.254240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Oct, 09:55, Daytona  wrote:
>> On 11 Oct, 09:45, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:47:59 -0700, Daytona 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm temporarily without a newsgroup service, so I'm not familiar with
>> > > using posting via email.
>>
>> > Can you not use Google Groups just as you did for this message?
>>
>> Fair point - I'm whitelisted, but due to the potential effects of it's
>> content I would like the post given the once over by a human <g>
>
> I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that emails undergo manual
> moderation ?
>
> Resend details -
>
> 11/11/7 08:38 212.84.100.226 - Not visible in queue at 09:58
>
> 11/11/7 09:59 212.84.100.226

As far as I know, it is currently not possible to submit posts via email. I 
don't know why not.  Your post has seemingly not reached the moderation 
queue - I'm fairly sure that if it doesn't appear in the public list at 
www.moderation.org.uk  it cannot reach the moderators.

If you want to ensure that your post is manually moderated, use a keyword. 
The keywords aren't publicised but "fuck" is a safe bet.

On 11 Oct, 11:11, "The Todal"  wrote:

> The keywords aren't publicised but "fuck" is a safe bet.

Thanks I'll post it now.

Looking at my last post I appear not to be whitelisted (yet) via
Google, which is sensible.

Daytona

On 11 Oct, 11:39, Daytona  wrote:
> On 11 Oct, 11:11, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> > The keywords aren't publicised but "fuck" is a safe bet.
>
> Thanks I'll post it now.

ID 32659

"Daytona"  wrote in message 
news:1192099160.681866.132400@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Oct, 11:11, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>> The keywords aren't publicised but "fuck" is a safe bet.
>
> Thanks I'll post it now.
>
> Looking at my last post I appear not to be whitelisted (yet) via
> Google, which is sensible.

I've added "sub judice" as trigger words so fuck no longer essential...

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:11:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>As far as I know, it is currently not possible to submit posts via email. I 
>don't know why not.

It must be possible to submit posts via email because that's the way
moderated groups work.  The punter posts his message to a news server
in the usual way and the news server then *emails* the posting to the
moderation address.

However, when emailing direct to a moderation address, it's not
entirely trivial to get all the headers right and some error in the
headers may explain why the emailed posting disappears.

Mike.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:52:53 +0100, Mike  wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:11:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, it is currently not possible to submit posts via email. I 
>> don't know why not.
>
> It must be possible to submit posts via email because that's the way
> moderated groups work.  The punter posts his message to a news server
> in the usual way and the news server then *emails* the posting to the
> moderation address.
>
> However, when emailing direct to a moderation address, it's not
> entirely trivial to get all the headers right and some error in the
> headers may explain why the emailed posting disappears.

I just sent a test email to uk-legal-moderated @ usenet.org.uk (with an
included gratuitous obscenity to prevent autopost) and I see it sitting
happily in the moderation queue right now.  It was just a plain vanilla
email except that I added the header: Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated.

Tony

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:q23tg35o3fiu5rrbqispk9jub62sqf6i7h@news.kempston.net...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:11:55 +0100, "The Todal" 
> wrote:
>
>>As far as I know, it is currently not possible to submit posts via email. 
>>I
>>don't know why not.
>
> It must be possible to submit posts via email because that's the way
> moderated groups work.  The punter posts his message to a news server
> in the usual way and the news server then *emails* the posting to the
> moderation address.
>
> However, when emailing direct to a moderation address, it's not
> entirely trivial to get all the headers right and some error in the
> headers may explain why the emailed posting disappears.

Thanks. I didn't know how it worked.

In  Daytona  writes:

>I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that emails undergo manual
>moderation ?

>Resend details -

>11/11/7 08:38 212.84.100.226 - Not visible in queue at 09:58

>11/11/7 09:59 212.84.100.226

I have looked at the mail logs at usenet.org.uk and find the following:

Sender address	Receive time	Subject	Relay	Mail size		
me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:47:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:15:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:14:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1115	[details] 	
me@privacy.net	2007-10-10 19:11:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1119	[details]

In all cases, the 'details' show that the status of delivery is "Pending".
I am investigating the reason for this, but in the meantime I suggest an
experiment with a suitably obscene content, but not sent from
me@privacy.net.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:23:06 GMT, "Charles Lindsey" 
wrote:

> In  Daytona  writes:
>
>> I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that emails undergo manual
>> moderation ?
>
>> Resend details -
>
>> 11/11/7 08:38 212.84.100.226 - Not visible in queue at 09:58
>
>> 11/11/7 09:59 212.84.100.226
>
> I have looked at the mail logs at usenet.org.uk and find the following:
>
> Sender address	Receive time	Subject	Relay	Mail size		
> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:47:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:15:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:14:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1115	[details] 	
> me@privacy.net	2007-10-10 19:11:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1119	[details]
>
> In all cases, the 'details' show that the status of delivery is "Pending".
> I am investigating the reason for this, but in the meantime I suggest an
> experiment with a suitably obscene content, but not sent from
> me@privacy.net.

My experience suggests it is the absence of a Newsgroups: header line.

Tony

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:27:55 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>My experience suggests it is the absence of a Newsgroups: header line.

That's the usual mistake made by those who try and email direct but
don't know the header requirements for a valid newsgroup posting.

Mike.

In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:

>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:23:06 GMT, "Charles Lindsey" 
>wrote:

>> I have looked at the mail logs at usenet.org.uk and find the following:
>>
>> Sender address	Receive time	Subject	Relay	Mail size		
>> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:47:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
>> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:15:09	Does this breach sub judice ?	sh-spam-4	1119	[details] 	
>> me@privacy.net	2007-10-11 10:14:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1115	[details] 	
>> me@privacy.net	2007-10-10 19:11:19	Does this breach sub judice ?	ph-mail-3	1119	[details]
>>
>> In all cases, the 'details' show that the status of delivery is "Pending".

>My experience suggests it is the absence of a Newsgroups: header line.

Yes, that's what it was. The "Pending" was just an artefact of the way 
Gradwell constructs its logs. 
 
But it just so happened that {R} was manning the Gradwell support desk 
when I raised the problem, so he could answer it with both his Gradwell 
and moderation hats on. 

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On 15 Oct, 09:43, "Charles Lindsey"  wrote:
> In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:
>
> >On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:23:06 GMT, "Charles Lindsey" 
> >wrote:

> >> In all cases, the 'details' show that the status of delivery is "Pending".
> >My experience suggests it is the absence of a Newsgroups: header line.
>
> Yes, that's what it was. The "Pending" was just an artefact of the way
> Gradwell constructs its logs.
>
> But it just so happened that {R} was manning the Gradwell support desk
> when I raised the problem, so he could answer it with both his Gradwell
> and moderation hats on.

Just noticed the replies here - my apologies.

You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.

Daytona

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0700, Daytona 
wrote:

> You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
> since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
> should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.

I agree it's definitely a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, but now
you know a successful workaround unless and until someone fixes it.

Tony

In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0700, Daytona 
>wrote:

>> You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
>> since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
>> should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.

>I agree it's definitely a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, but now
>you know a successful workaround unless and until someone fixes it.

No, it's not a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, whose only function
is to forward the email as received to the moderator.

It is arguably a bug with the ULM moderation software (also used by some
other UK moderated groups), but you will have to argue with the moderators
or with {R} over that one.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:45:14 GMT, Charles Lindsey put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0700, Daytona 
>>wrote:
>
>>> You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
>>> since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
>>> should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.
>
>>I agree it's definitely a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, but now
>>you know a successful workaround unless and until someone fixes it.
>
>No, it's not a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, whose only function
>is to forward the email as received to the moderator.
>
>It is arguably a bug with the ULM moderation software (also used by some
>other UK moderated groups), but you will have to argue with the moderators
>or with {R} over that one.

The submission address isn't intended to be used by humans. It's
intended to be used by the software (whether client-side or
server-side) which converts a post to a moderated group into an email
to the moderator (or moderation system). As such, it's entirely
reasonable to expect that software to correctly insert the required
headers.

Some moderated groups take a more liberal view, and accept submissions
emailed to them by people using normal email software rather than
posting via a news server. That can be helpful for users who have
problems posting via the normal method (for example, if their news
server is misconfigured and fails to recognise that the group is,
indeed, moderated), as it allows them to post to the group via email
without needing to worry about adding in the newsgroups header.
However, such liberality is not required, and should not be presumed
to exist. Since the submission address for a moderated newsgroup will
inevitably receive large quantities of email spam (since the address
is, of necessity, published unmunged), it is entirely understandable
if the moderator(s) of any group choose to automatically reject
messages not containing the required headers in the correct format.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk   Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:45:14 GMT, "Charles Lindsey" 
wrote:

> In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0700, Daytona 
>> wrote:
>
>>> You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
>>> since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
>>> should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.
>
>> I agree it's definitely a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, but now
>> you know a successful workaround unless and until someone fixes it.
>
> No, it's not a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, whose only function
> is to forward the email as received to the moderator.
>
> It is arguably a bug with the ULM moderation software (also used by some
> other UK moderated groups), but you will have to argue with the moderators
> or with {R} over that one.

Sorry, that was a mis-statement.  I insist that it is a bug somewhere in
the system, but whether it is in usenet.org.uk or the moderation software
or the manner in which such mail is made available to human moderators is
something of which I have no knowledge or right to comment on.

Tony

On 29 Oct, 11:45, "Charles Lindsey"  wrote:
> In  "Anthony R. Gold"  writes:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:50:23 -0700, Daytona 
> >wrote:
> >> You're quite correct, I hadn't even thought about it. But then again
> >> since that address is for ulm usenet submissions only, I feel that it
> >> should be assumed, as it's hardly the email clients responsibility.
> >I agree it's definitely a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, but now
> >you know a successful workaround unless and until someone fixes it.
>
> No, it's not a bug in the usenet.org.uk mail system, whose only function
> is to forward the email as received to the moderator.
>
> It is arguably a bug with the ULM moderation software (also used by some
> other UK moderated groups), but you will have to argue with ... {R} over that one.

And may God have mercy on your soul...

--
 x    If He has, might you even win?
/|\