🚀 go-pugleaf

Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:
>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.

Why didn't you post an actual on topic message, or an introductory
message to the group, as a test message?

>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.

I have no idea how you tried to limit distribution. Did you add an
actual Distribution header? I just don't see how the concept applies
when the gateway is in another city.

>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.

So what's going on with that, the actual important topic of this thread?
You can't answer any of my concerns, only the hierarchy administrator
can, strangely absent from Usenet.

Who is it, anyway?

>>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.

"The group is not propagating due to technical issues not being
addressed" isn't an issue of limited interest to administrators, but
important for all those who would be interested in reading the group
might wish to know. Obviously, that field of interest was limited to
users of three servers known to have created the group, but still.

I appreciate being treated in a heavy handed manner and thus receiving
the dubious distinction of being the first poster whose message wasn't
approved. The proponents claimed the moderated group was necessary for
other reasons that, er, too many "administrative" messages posted to
ba.broadcast. Way to play into behavioral roles anticipated by the
targets of moderation.

I don't care about the topic of discussion and wouldn't be a regular. My
interest was limited to the propagation issue not getting resolved.