🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <h4q51h$ep2$1@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>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. 

No, it wasn't. I am a moderator and, at someone else's suggesation,
made one posting to see whether it would correctly be sent to the 
moderation software instead of being posted directly to the group. 
Perhaps I should not have subsequently approved its posting to the 
group, and I apologize if I should not have conducted that experiment.
As you saw, I tried to limit the distribution of my message to that 
server, but as I suspected would happen, that no longer works.

The two subsequent postings were from people on the same newserver
who were simply greeting the arrival of the group. They are not
moderatores, and there was no meta discussion (one posting said 
"<waves>" and the other said "<pots up>"; hardly a "discussion" 
of any sort), and I made no further postings. I don't plan to make 
any more until the group has wider distribution. 

>My followup to that thread was rejected for being an "administrative"
>message

Your posting was indeed administrative in nature and thus properly 
directed to the moderators, not to the group, as is standard procedure 
with moderated Usenet groups. We are still available at the stated
contact address.


Patty