XPost: alt.comp.software.thunderbird, news.software.readers   
   From: mariasophia@comprehension.com   
      
   Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > J. P. Gilliver  wrote:   
   >>On 2026/1/30 23:29:13, Arlen wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>. . .   
   >   
   >>>I think that address might be -moderated@moderators.isc.org   
   >>>based on these tests with distinctly different results in that regard.   
   >   
   >>When setting up Turnpike, some decades ago, I got the impression that   
   >>the default for moderated 'groups _was_ some common address; the above   
   >>rings a faint bell.   
   >   
   > In olden days, every News server had to maintain a list of submission   
   > addresses in a moderators file. It was recognized that these addresses   
   > would quickly go out of date. Using a generic form of address meant that   
   > the moderators file could be maintained centrally, and it became yet   
   > another function ISC performed on behalf of the Usenet community. Why   
   > ISC? Specific people worked there.   
   >   
   > This is done for moderated newsgroups in the Big 8 and alt. It's   
   > performed on behalf of some "language" and regional hierarchies, but not   
   > all. Moderated newsgroups are not unheard of in larger regional hierarchies   
   > like uk, but they are quite rare in smaller ones. I think uk maintains   
   > its own central list but I don't recall specifically.   
   >   
   > It is possible to maintain a moderators file at a News site without   
   > relying upon these centrally maintained files but it would be a huge   
   > pain in the ass to learn all of the submission addresses as they change.   
   >   
   >>If the _client_ does it - which would seem a more efficient way, after   
   >>all why involve the newsserver if that can be avoided - then the list of   
   >>newsgroups must contain a flag for the ones that are moderated, so that   
   >>the client knows to treat posts to it differently. (Posts _in_ it - i.   
   >>e. from other posters, that have already been passed by the moderator[s]   
   >>- can be treated the same as those in any other 'group.)   
   >   
   > You are speaking of treating a submission address like the submission   
   > address of a moderated mailing list. It can certainly be done by an   
   > email client.   
   >   
   > It's impossible for the newsreader to submit it because the newsreader   
   > isn't an email client. If it's done with a client that's combined of a   
   > newsreader and email client, like Thunderbird or alpine, then it's not   
   > using the newsreader to submit the proto article.   
   >   
   >>As such, moderated 'groups must have some flag in the news client.   
   >   
   > In the For your newsgroups file line of a newgroup message sent by the   
   > hierarchy administrator or proponent of a newsgroup, the flag is the   
   > appended " (Moderated)". In the active file, the flag is "m". These are   
   > files that may be downloaded periodically from the News site by the   
   > newsreader. If a newsreader uses them, it's for a sanity check when   
   > subscribing to a newsgroup or crossposting a root article or followup.   
   > If the newsreader would require rudimentary SMTP functions to send the   
   > proto article as email. But now, the use of an invalid email address on   
   > From is nonstandard in email, so what are all the whiners paranoid about   
   > privacy gonna do? There is no concept of a "proto message" in email.   
   >   
   > Also, the Message-ID string on the References header could be lost as   
   > it's used for a different purpose in email. Note that the use of   
   > References in lieu of In-Reply-To that makes threading possible was a   
   > misunderstanding of the differences between the two headers in the early   
   > days of Usenet when Mail message format was adapted for News.   
   >   
   > This is a disadvantage to not submitting the proto article to the News   
   > site to gate it to email. There are plenty of others, such as the   
   > ignorant sending every Mail message as HTML with an alternative part,   
   > something that's entirely unwanted in plain text Usenet.   
   >   
   > I don't agree with your notion of submitting directly to the submission   
   > address in the newsreader. I see drawbacks but no advantages.   
   >   
   > Also note that the shared format was because interserver communication   
   > with long distance telephone charges via modems was hideously expensive   
   > and it allowed shared messages to be sent as a single News article, then   
   > a local mailing list allowed it to be delivered to mailboxes.   
   >   
   >>I have a feeling there was such an indication in Turnpike. I've just   
   >>looked at the properties of this 'group in Thunderbird, and I can't   
   >>_see_ a "moderated" indication that isn't ticked, but maybe it only   
   >>appears at all on moderated ones?   
   >   
   >>ISTR there was also some mechanism for entering a different moderator   
   >>from the default (@moderators.isc.org) one for 'groups that had a   
   >>moderator whose address wasn't part of that organisation. (That -   
   >>isc.org - is probably what I was [mis?]remembering as a central   
   >>organisation - not really a clearinghouse.)   
      
   Since privacy is everything on the Internet, I think now that the standard   
   process each newsreader uses likely maintains the privacy change all along.   
      
   This is the flow I'm belatedly beginning to understand better:   
    user > nntp server > smtp server > moderator > acceptance > posting   
      
   If that's the correct typical flow, and given the fact that it's publicly   
   accepted to obfuscate identity on Usenet, since email is required in that   
   flow, what smtp and nntp server does the moderator's process utilize?   
   --   
   Those who ridicules privacy are merely stating they don't understand it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)