should we moderate comp.lang.c++

[arnuld]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.


[NOTE: i know there is already a moderated C++ newsgroup but i don't
think we need "moderated" in our newsgroup's name. ]

 

[osmium]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.


[NOTE: i know there is already a moderated C++ newsgroup but i don't
think we need "moderated" in our newsgroup's name. ]

If you see the need for a newsgroup with a secret protocol, propose such on
news.groups.proposals. Don't ruin an existing group by trying to fix it.
If the spam becomes too bad, the people will naturally abandon this group,
Darwin discussed this general subject. I would much rather just live with a
bit of spam than adjust my life to deal with your sleeping patterns.

BTW, Google has nothing to do with the management of Usenet, they are
simply one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of services, that provide retail
delivery of Usenet postings.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.


[NOTE: i know there is already a moderated C++ newsgroup but i don't
think we need "moderated" in our newsgroup's name. ]

If you're concerned with spam (which is insignificant, yet annoying),
then you can always move to the moderated group. We should NOT create
another moderated group on the same subject. The difference between
c.l.c++ and c.l.c++.m is rather clear and it's the moderation itself.
Removing the difference would create unnecessary confusion. Besides,
I for one prefer non-moderated newsgroup for its swiftness.

V

 

[Victor Bazarov]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.


[NOTE: i know there is already a moderated C++ newsgroup but i don't
think we need "moderated" in our newsgroup's name. ]

If you see the need for a newsgroup with a secret protocol, propose
such on news.groups.proposals. Don't ruin an existing group by
trying to fix it. If the spam becomes too bad, the people will
naturally abandon this group, Darwin discussed this general subject.
I would much rather just live with a bit of spam than adjust my life
to deal with your sleeping patterns.
BTW, Google has nothing to do with the management of Usenet, they are
simply one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of services, that provide
retail delivery of Usenet postings.

The problem is, most of the sh!t coming down in the form of spam is
originating on Google. Real ISPs bind their users with Acceptable Use
Policy and therefore have leverage to shut spammers up. Google does
not care (at this time) to do that. If they did, there would NOT be
such a deluge of crap.

V

 

[Stuart Redmann]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.


[NOTE: i know there is already a moderated C++ newsgroup but i don't
think we need "moderated" in our newsgroup's name. ]

If you're concerned with spam (which is insignificant, yet annoying),
then you can always move to the moderated group. We should NOT create
another moderated group on the same subject. The difference between
c.l.c++ and c.l.c++.m is rather clear and it's the moderation itself.
Removing the difference would create unnecessary confusion. Besides,
I for one prefer non-moderated newsgroup for its swiftness.

I fully agree. Also, the replies to some of the spam postings makes me laugh
quite frequently. What a better start of a working day than a good hearty laugh.

Stuart

 

[arnuld]

If you see the need for a newsgroup with a secret protocol, propose such on
news.groups.proposals. Don't ruin an existing group by trying to fix it.
If the spam becomes too bad, the people will naturally abandon this group,
Darwin discussed this general subject. I would much rather just live with a
bit of spam than adjust my life to deal with your sleeping patterns.

i was not talking of secret-protocols.. but i don't know how moderated
newsgroups/mailing-lists work either. i thought the message goes to
the moderator 1st and then moderator checks it.

BTW, Google has nothing to do with the management of Usenet,

no, Google is responsible.

they are
simply one of hundreds or perhaps thousands of services, that provide retail
delivery of Usenet postings.

80% of the spammers carry gmail accounts and 15% belongs to hotmail
and rest is just a small part.

 

[arnuld]

I fully agree. Also, the replies to some of the spam postings makes me laugh
quite frequently. What a better start of a working day than a good hearty laugh.

ok, i drop the idea...

 

[Default User]

osmium wrote:

The problem is, most of the sh!t coming down in the form of spam is
originating on Google. Real ISPs bind their users with Acceptable Use
Policy and therefore have leverage to shut spammers up. Google does
not care (at this time) to do that. If they did, there would NOT be
such a deluge of crap.

In the past, news services that allowed as much spamming as Google were
given the usenet death penalty. I don't know if anyone has the balls to
try that with the 9000 pound gorilla.




Brian

 

[Default User]

i see lots of spam every week thrown onto our newsgroup and i have
sent more than enough emails and reports to Google (may be 16, may be
more than 20, i did not remember) but Google just does not care.

should we moderate comp.lang.c++ ? if yes, who can contribute ? if
nobody then i am willing to do take the job.

It's virutally impossible to switch an unmoderated group to moderated.
It would be additionally difficult when there is already a moderated
group.

You haven't explained why clc++m isn't sufficient for you. You probably
have some grand vision of a group with all the traffic of clc++ and
none of the spam and other annoyances, but it doesn't work that way.

Moderated groups aren't as popular because they are usually slow. It
can take, depending on the number of moderators and their dedication,
days to get a post approved. At the very least it's usually hours.



Brian

 

[Jim Langston]

i was not talking of secret-protocols.. but i don't know how moderated
newsgroups/mailing-lists work either. i thought the message goes to
the moderator 1st and then moderator checks it.


no, Google is responsible.



80% of the spammers carry gmail accounts and 15% belongs to hotmail
and rest is just a small part.

And every time I come across spam I block the sender, and if I notice it's
@gmail.com I forward it to (e-mail address removed) with the comment "spamming
newsgroups". You should do the same. If it's hotmail or yahoo or such then
they're just using that as their return address (as I do) and may not be
their primary e-mail account, that is, the ISP they're using.

 

[Default User]

And every time I come across spam I block the sender, and if I notice
it's @gmail.com I forward it to (e-mail address removed) with the comment
"spamming newsgroups". You should do the same.

He's using GG as well, so no filtering for him. I suggest a real news
service and newsreader.




Brian

 

[werasm]

Default User wrote:

It's virutally impossible to switch an unmoderated group to moderated.
It would be additionally difficult when there is already a moderated
group.

You haven't explained why clc++m isn't sufficient for you. You probably
have some grand vision of a group with all the traffic of clc++ and
none of the spam and other annoyances, but it doesn't work that way.

Moderated groups aren't as popular because they are usually slow. It
can take, depending on the number of moderators and their dedication,
days to get a post approved. At the very least it's usually hours.

I can see arnulds point. clc++m IMO has a very slow turnaround because
of "good" moderation, so to speak.

If one could have levels of moderation, for instance, lets assume in
clc++ only spam, job postings and derogatory remarks are moderated
(and not things that are (vaguely) OT), that would make things much
better already.

By vaguely OT is mean related to C++, but not necessarily standard C+
+. This can be corrected by the other readers/posters themselves (good
old Victor) as usual.

Just a nit.

Werner

 

[Frank Birbacher]

Hi!

If one could have levels of moderation, for instance, lets assume in
clc++ only spam, job postings and derogatory remarks are moderated
(and not things that are (vaguely) OT), that would make things much
better already.

So you propose a human spam filter?

Frank

 

[werasm]

Hi!


So you propose a human spam filter?

That is a level of moderation that is less than the current clmc++,
yes. Also, quite an easy thing to moderate. One could almost go by the
title. I'm not proposing anything really, just stating that I can
identify with the OPs complaint.

That said, currently I can easily identify what is spam and what not
by looking at the title myself, and having a moderator for that
purpose is not necessarily necessary. I can probably do this quicker
than having someone at standby for moderation, therefore I suppose
"No". I still relate to the OPs need, though, and my analogy (human
spam filter) is how I translate his need. Whether or not viable is
another question.

Werner

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Frank Birbacher:

So you propose a human spam filter?

I agree with what seems to be Frank's point. Current news-servers,
except Google and perhaps a few new-started ones, already do the spam
filtering, as I understand it mostly via the CleanFeed filter[1]. So
currently there are three levels of moderation available for the main
C++ groups:

* clc++ unmoderated -- use Google interface.
* clc++ spam-free -- use any good news-server.
* clc++m (no spam, no job-postings, no OT, no non-English, almost
no derogatory remarks although it happens that we fail).

An additional level of moderation between the last two seems to me to be
overkill, solving a problem that IMHO isn't really a problem.

- Alf


Notes:
[1] <url:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-5.1-Manual/manual/doc103.html#i962>.

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:



I can see arnulds point. clc++m IMO has a very slow turnaround because
of "good" moderation, so to speak.

Well, no, it's slow because it has active moderation. That means that a
moderator has to review and approve each message.



Brian