🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Julien ALIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Hi Adam,

>>>Checking the archived newgroup message at ftp.isc.org for
>>>ba.broadcast.moderated, I don't see rone's note that it was reissued
>>>with the correct header signature.

>>ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/ba/ba.broadcast.moderated.gz
>>contains the two newgroup messages sent.

>Heh. I swear, rone's wasn't there when I looked just before writing this!

>>>It appears that the incorrectly signed message was processed anyway,
>>>which isn't supposed to happen.

>>These two newgroup control articles were only archived, not processed
>>for action.  Both of them have an invalid signature.

>Oops. I wasn't thinking. The criteria for archiving messages are quite
>relaxed.

>>>The date header in the archived message doesn't match either of the
>>>two messages sent. Is the date changed when a newgroup message is
>>>archived?

>>The Date: header seems fine (it is different from the first From line).

>Hm. I compared the Date header in the messages as I received them and in
>the archives; identical. Never mind.

>>>http://ennui.org/ba/control.ctl

>>>This isn't the current entry in control.ctl, so you want to update it?

>>Information currently used is:
>>    http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=BA

>>It looks as though:
>> * the administrative group should be changed (ba.news.config -> ba.config);

>Good point. The actual control.ctl entry isn't up-to-date either.
>ba.config was started in a reorganization 11 years ago in which the
>ba.news.* groups were rmgrouped, according to the initial newgroup
>message for ba.config.

Today is Day Nine of the alleged existence of ba.broadcast.moderated.
The issue with the bad keys hasn't been dealt with. The issue of the
erroneous control.ctl entry for the hierarchy hasn't been dealt with.
The key file on the Web site and sample control.ctl entry both continue
to refer to ba.news.config and not ba.config, the former defunct since
1998. Is naming the wrong newsgroup sufficient for the key to fail?

The Web site has a text file of the message that would have been in a
checkgroups but no checkgroups has been issued reflecting the change in
the recognized set of newsgroups. When I checked the archived, I
couldn't find that a checkgroups had been issued all year.

The propagation search reports ba.broadcast.moderated created on four
servers checked (I assume none implements key verification for this
hierarchy) versus 38 servers for ba.broadcast.

I've seen exactly one thread, a meta discussion among the moderators. My
followup to that thread was rejected for being an "administrative"
message, so even the moderators seem to be sweeping the problems under
the rug.

This group isn't created on any server implementing key verification for
this hierarchy.

Who is hierarchy administrator and why isn't he following this discussion?