🚀 go-pugleaf

In <EDIS.94Feb16135320@eta.pha.jhu.edu>, edis@eta.pha.jhu.edu (Taner Edis) writes:
>       For the convenience of some present subscribers, and extending
>the practical accessibility of the list SKEPTIC, a uni-directional
>gateway to Usenet is proposed.  This has already been discussed on the
>list, and with the LISTSERV administrator at the site of SKEPTIC.
>
>       The purpose of the list is similar to the extant newsgroup
>sci.skeptic, except that there is more of an emphasis on keeping the
>noise level of the discussion down.  This is effected by intervention
>of the list owner, without having to resort to full scale moderation.
>The one-way nature of the proposed gateway is for such a purpose; to
>disallow the indiscriminate cross-postings and crank material that
>afflicts sci.skeptic.

I do not understand uni-directional gateways.  I had even considered
removing mention of them from the Gateway Policy post.  None of the 280+
gateways we operate now are uni-directional.  Some people have asked for
them over the years (I presume since the post mentions them) but none
have eventually asked for them.  I'm not sure at this point if I would
set one up.

My primary concern with unidirectional gateways is that no one on the
Usenet side expects them.  Someone may post a question on the mailing
list, and never see the responses on the newsgroup.  People on the
Usenet site have no idea that some number of people cannot see their
posts (since that is so unlike the way the rest of the newsgroups
operate) and may not understand why their contributions to the on-going
discussions are ignored by some portion of the participants.

If the traffic generated by the Usenet participants isn't wanted, then
why have a gateway in the first place?  What purpose is served by having
a newsgroup simply serve as an echo of a mailing list?  If the people on
Usenet are not allowed to joing the discussions, why should they pay the
cost of passing and storing the posts around the world at and between
tens of thousands of Usenet sites?  Also (remembering the short
expiration times at some sites), how are the Usenet participants to know
about the unique configuration of this one newsgroup?

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019

edis@eta.pha.jhu.edu (Taner Edis) wrote:

>>       For the convenience of some present subscribers, and extending
>>the practical accessibility of the list SKEPTIC, a uni-directional
>>gateway to Usenet is proposed.

I don't see a clear need for yet another newsgroup on the same topic.
Why not ask sci.skeptic if that group would be willing to receive
articles "posted" from the SKEPTIC mailing list?  Here's an example
of another alternative:

ECOLOG-L was made moderated due to constant public complaints about
constant public complaints, which had created a vicious virtual loop.
The list is gated to sci.bio.ecology, thus all articles sent by
subscribers and from the newsgroup are (potentially) seen by everyone,
but the list owner may suppress some articles from appearing at all
and some articles may appear only on the newsgroup.  As I understand
it, only "subscribe me" requests have been squelched so far, since 
the complaint loop broke.


Jim McIntosh  <jim@american.edu> wrote:

>I do not understand uni-directional gateways.  I had even considered
>removing mention of them from the Gateway Policy post.  None of the 280+
>gateways we operate now are uni-directional.

What about sci.answers and SCIFAQ-L?  At present, sci.answers is a 
subscriber, via NETNEWS@AUVM, with the NOMAIL option set, so no mail
goes from the list to the newsgroup.

Aren't there a few mailing lists that are set PRIVATE, so only
subscribers' articles are distributed?  Articles sent to these
lists via Usenet newsgroups may be refused if the original sender
is not a subscriber, thus to be seen on the mailing list side, the
sender must subscribe to the mailing list, even though posting to
a newsgroup.  Such subscribers may have the NOMAIL option set for
themselves, to avoid getting mail from the list in addition to
reading the newsgroup.


>My primary concern with unidirectional gateways is that no one on the
>Usenet side expects them.

No one expects them on the mailing list end either.  This is all a
kludge, but then I know of some mighty snarled groups of mailing
lists that redistribute mail from one to the other in ways that very
few participants ever realize.  And there are some newsgroup
re-direction messes too, unfortunately.

I think such elaborate setups are probably a mistake, but that
doesn't mean they should be disallowed.  It is important in
such cases that the setup be explained regularly, preferably
in a FAQ.

-- 
	Una Smith			smith-una@yale.edu

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104  USA

> I don't see a clear need for yet another newsgroup on the same topic.
> Why not ask sci.skeptic if that group would be willing to receive
> articles "posted" from the SKEPTIC mailing list?

	Because sci.skeptic is already over-large, and low in quality
as far as signal-to-noise ratio is concerned.  My subscribers who
would like to be able to read SKEPTIC through UseNet would not want to
have to go through the sci.skeptic swamp in order to do so.  The
current newsgroup and list are similar in aims, but not identical:
SKEPTIC is in effect semi-moderated.

	Taner Edis,  SKEPTIC list owner

Taner Edis <edis@eta.pha.jhu.edu> wrote:

>	... sci.skeptic is already over-large, and low in quality
>as far as signal-to-noise ratio is concerned.

And you think adding another newsgroup will make things better?

-- 
	Una Smith			smith-una@yale.edu

Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT  06520-8104  USA

In <1994Feb18.020404.13892@news.yale.edu>, una@doliolum.biology.yale.edu (Una Smith) writes:
>What about sci.answers and SCIFAQ-L?  At present, sci.answers is a
>subscriber, via NETNEWS@AUVM, with the NOMAIL option set, so no mail
>goes from the list to the newsgroup.

In this case the subscribers to the mailing list know what they are
getting -- a redistribution of a newsgroup with no opportunity to
respond. In the opposite case the Usenet users have no way of knowing
that the gateway is uni-directional.

>Aren't there a few mailing lists that are set PRIVATE, so only
>subscribers' articles are distributed?  Articles sent to these
>lists via Usenet newsgroups may be refused if the original sender
>is not a subscriber, thus to be seen on the mailing list side, the
>sender must subscribe to the mailing list, even though posting to
>a newsgroup.  Such subscribers may have the NOMAIL option set for
>themselves, to avoid getting mail from the list in addition to
>reading the newsgroup.

That is true, and that would be acceptable since the people who post are
sent e-mail by the listserv saying why their post was rejected. The list
owner's address is included so they have a human they can write to if
they do not understand things.

>>My primary concern with unidirectional gateways is that no one on the
>>Usenet side expects them.
>
>No one expects them on the mailing list end either.  This is all a
>kludge, but then I know of some mighty snarled groups of mailing
>lists that redistribute mail from one to the other in ways that very
>few participants ever realize.  And there are some newsgroup
>re-direction messes too, unfortunately.

True -- but we don't have to make things worse, do we?  Most of these
mazes were set up in the early days of the net, when the points of
connection were few, frequently changed and unstable.

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019