Article <ZpOyGd2H5MReZMYw@violet.siamics.net>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<ZpOyGd2H5MReZMYw@violet.siamics.net>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.users.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail
From: Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid>
Newsgroups: news.groups.proposals,news.groups
Subject: moderation infrastructure
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 16:46:02 EDT
Organization: Dbus-free station.
Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org>
Message-ID: <ZpOyGd2H5MReZMYw@violet.siamics.net>
References: <MPG.42b54d916dd18e09896f4@news.eternal-september.org>
 <MPG.42b54e792ebe45e59896f5@news.eternal-september.org>
 <MPG.42b54ff3bf9863519896f7@news.eternal-september.org>
 <MPG.42b54f6af1452af69896f6@news.eternal-september.org>
 <102ifv6$14a$1@reader1.panix.com>
 <MPG.42b7986f32aa02779896f8@news.eternal-september.org>
 <684e1bb7@news.ausics.net>
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6";
	logging-data="11655"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RTM/gsgm79nzqRjp646zQOflc6E=
License: CC0-1.0 (original contributions only)

>>>>> On 2025-06-15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> In news.groups.proposals Rayner Lucas wrote:

	I couldn't help but feel that the recent discussion at large
	comes as somewhat discouraging towards prospective moderators.
	And hence counter-productive, given that perhaps our best chance
	at having moderator /teams/ at this point is to have more than
	one person independently volunteer at the same time.

	As well, criticizing someone's job without a particular tangible
	goal in mind seems pointless at best.  A possible such goal might
	be, say, "5% increase of quality traffic across Big-8 groups in a
	year."  It is my personal opinion that the recent actions of the
	Board increased the chances of that happening.  It is also my
	personal opinion that the chances are still infinitesimal due to
	circumstances outside of the Board's control (such as the fairly
	good so far performance of competing technologies, ActivityPub
	and Matrix among them), rendering the point largely moot.

 >> The only other way I can think of to lower the barrier to entry is
 >> some sort of hosted moderation platform, but that would be a single
 >> point of failure just like Robomod was.

 > If I understand correctly, the moderation software just needs to
 > read mail from the newsgroup's submission email inbox and post
 > approved messages to a willing NNTP server.  In that case you could
 > easily have instances of the same moderation platform running in
 > different places, similar to front-end websites like Invidious.

	The moderator is expected to check their mailbox and either
	do that, or respond with rejection notices (or just discard
	outright abuse); and what software they use, and how, to do
	that, is entirely up to them.  For instance, I'm going to rely
	on a handful of Vim macros for the time being.

	That's somewhat of a problem, as a moderation team will need
	to, among other things, agree on what software to use, and the
	preferences here might be highly subjective.  Say, I don't mind
	using a browser, Lynx mainly, to read the Web, yet using one to
	do meaningful work is something I'd rather not do outside of a
	paid-for job.

	That said, at the core, a team needs a shared address or two
	(one for submissions and another for reaching the team), /and/
	one or more newsservers whose operators allow the members to
	post approved articles.

	It's very well possible for individual members to pick their
	own software for turning an incoming email into an approved
	article (or rejection notice.)  About the only issue is
	coordination; say, if one member rejects a submission, another
	should at least be warned if they try to then approve it.
	(If an article is approved more than once, it will be rejected
	by the server due to a duplicate Message-Id:.)

	One way to coordinate would be to use a shared incoming
	mailbox: before dealing with a submission, you move it into
	your own mailbox; and once you've dealt with it, you move it
	into "approved" or "rejected."  But there're just so many
	ways of doing that that trying to market some sort of "single
	best solution" is likely to fail.

	A natural place to put the requisite functionality would be
	a patch or an extension for a mail + news user agent: Alpine,
	Gnus, Neomutt, Slrn, whatever.  Some of them (Gnus, Slrn) are
	readily extensible; others, I presume, will require patches.

	Moderation being accessible from one's own preferred user agent
	would likely increase the likelihood of one volunteering, and
	yet maintaining all that code will be quite an effort.  Not that
	there has to be a single person doing it; anyone interested could
	try implementing this for the user agent of their choice.

	A particular impediment to that is the lack of standardization
	when it comes to how an email submission is ought to be
	transformed into an approved Usenet article (say, that the
	incoming message Subject: is ought to be preserved, while
	Control:, if any, must be rejected.)  Researching existing
	moderation software first may be necessary.

[...]

 > The only issue, and I'm not sure if it's an issue, might be the NNTP
 > servers willing to accept postings from these distributed neo-Robomod
 > instances.  I got the impression from past discussion that some
 > (most?) NNTP servers don't accept moderators posting approved
 > articles through them, or require personal requests to allow it.

	There's indeed no easy way for the server to verify that the
	approval is genuine, so it makes every sense for server operators
	to only allow approvals to be posted from pre-verified accounts.

	But perhaps the problem needs to be approached from the reverse?
	Could we perhaps make a moderation platform that the newsmasters
	wouldn't mind deploying as part of their news setup, given that
	they already have a willing newsserver at hand, and presumably
	also working email?

	That said, Invidious can get away with working only with "big"
	browsers, but I'm not so sure that the majority of Usenet users
	will be eager to adopt some single solution for moderation when
	they use such a diversity of newsreaders already.