🚀 go-pugleaf

jbutler@bamanet.ua.edu (Jeremy Butler) writes:

>I recently posted a note about creating a gateway between Usenet and the 
>LISTSERV I run, SCREEN-L.

>I have a question about making SCREEN-L a uni-directional newsgroup.  If 
>bit.listserv.screen-l were created as a "read-only" newsgroup, where SCREEN-L 
>messages were posted on it, but not vice versa, what happens when someone 
>posts a message on bit.listserv.screen-l?

>Is the poster told that posting are not permitted in that newsgroup?  Or, is 
>his post put on bit.listserv.screen-l even though it is *not* sent to SCREEN-L 
>proper?

>Thanks for any clarification!

>--Jeremy

>P.S.  If you are e-mailing me directly, please use the following address as I 
>notice that the return address on my posts is in error:

>jbutler@bamanet.ua.edu

We had a long discussion about this amongst the QUAKER-P list owners.
The one-way post as is can cause a lot of confusion as it does not
affect the netnews group.  People post to Netnews in response to someone
on the list, but the person on the list will never see it.

We solved this one by making it a moderated group, with the listserv
list as the moderator.  The list is set to SEND=Private, so you have to
be subscribed to post.  Any posts by non-subscribers are rejected with
an automatic listserv message saying they cannot post if they are not
subscribed to QUAKER-P.  Any posts sent to QUAKER-P by subscribers are
automatically relayed to NetNews by the list, and since the list is the
moderator, it is posted.  (Thanks to Jim for this elegant solution!)

Since QUAKER-P is Subscribe=Public, anyone can just send a message to
listserv and subscribe.  But it allows us to keep control over the list,
as we can DEL or Filter anyone abusing the group's guidelines.

Full moderation by actual humans was just too much work for us to
consider... 

--
Bruce P. A. Dienes                     Beware the iniquitous Disk Trolls!
Internet: bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu     
 or:      dienes@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu      
 or:      bdienes@turner.odos.uiuc.edu
 or:      dienes@firefly.prairienet.org
BitNet:   dienes@uiucvmd
Phone:    Home:  217-328-7720 (best)   or     Office:  217-333-3704 (msg)

In article <2ocg34$ioc@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> bdienes@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Bruce Dienes) writes:
>>I have a question about making SCREEN-L a uni-directional newsgroup.  If 
>>bit.listserv.screen-l were created as a "read-only" newsgroup, where SCREEN-L 
>>messages were posted on it, but not vice versa, what happens when someone 
>>posts a message on bit.listserv.screen-l?

>We had a long discussion about this amongst the QUAKER-P list owners.
>The one-way post as is can cause a lot of confusion as it does not
>affect the netnews group.  People post to Netnews in response to someone
>on the list, but the person on the list will never see it.

Now I get it.  Thanks for the clarification, Bruce!

>We solved this one by making it a moderated group, with the listserv
>list as the moderator.  The list is set to SEND=Private, so you have to
>be subscribed to post.  Any posts by non-subscribers are rejected with
>an automatic listserv message saying they cannot post if they are not
>subscribed to QUAKER-P.  Any posts sent to QUAKER-P by subscribers are
>automatically relayed to NetNews by the list, and since the list is the
>moderator, it is posted.  (Thanks to Jim for this elegant solution!)

Interesting.  The only problem I see with this (and the reason I keep SCREEN-L 
set SEND=Public) is the trouble LISTSERV has recognizing a subscriber's 
slightly different e-mail addresses.  Many subscribers have multiple e-mail 
addresses and some might accidently or unknowingly send mail to a list from an 
address other than the one they're subscribed under.

E.g., I'm subscribed to SCREEN-L under jbutler@ua1vm.ua.edu.  Let's say  
I send mail from jbutler@ua1vm.bitnet.  If SEND=Private, LISTSERV will reject 
the mail.

I ran into this problem frequently when SCREEN-L was set to Private, so I 
changed it back to Public.

>Full moderation by actual humans was just too much work for us to
>consider... 

Yeah, I agree.  I wonder if there's some compromise to this whole 
moderated/private deal....?

Thanks very much for the suggestion.