moderation of alt.sources vs. automated harangues

[David C Lawrence]

In article <14117 at well.UUCP>, pokey at well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
Jef> Making alt.sources moderated would be unacceptable.  If anyone tries it
Jef> I will immediately newgroup yet another sources group, since quick
Jef> turnaround and reliability against single-point hardware, software, and
Jef> moderator failures are desirable features.

Jef> I suggest that alt.sources be moderated, but the moderator's address
Jef> should be an automatic reply script that mails something like this back
Jef> to the sender:

Jef> [proposed message deleted]

Jef> I volunteer to set up this reply script.  Improvements to the wording
Jef> are welcome.

While I like this idea, there are three problems I have with it.

  o The issue regarding single-point hardware/software failure has not
    been dealt with.  Pretty major problem if that is part of the
    argument against human moderation.

  o The message you drafted includes one particular way of getting the
    article in to the group, which might not be true or quite as
    convenient for some people as it is presented.  Minor problem.

  o You tell just about any yutz who would post non-source to
    alt.sources how to go about forging an article into a moderated
    group.  While such information is far from secret, it is not
    exactly common knowledge either.  Also a pretty minor problem, but
    it doesn't sit well with me.

It could be made moderated by Russ Nelson (see his "I volunteer!"
message in alt.config).  He is a reliable guy and I like his proposal
as it stands.  We could also add to the charter that no one gets
uptight when someone does do the ol' forge-the-moderator-approval bit
to get some source into the group without waiting for it to go through
Russ.

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale at pawl.rpi.edu" "tale at itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale at rpitsmts.bitnet"))