Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v08nmg$1njn1$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> Newsgroups: news.software.nntp Subject: Re: Young people peering Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 16:30:08 -0000 (UTC) Organization: the-candyden-of-code Lines: 48 Message-ID: <v08nmg$1njn1$1@dont-email.me> References: <uvgh5a$1d8l$10@gallifrey.nk.ca> <uvu0mb$325p1$1@dont-email.me> <uvu2kk$4e0$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> <c433b7d454b6df388df6d6028084ac9b@www.novabbs.org> <v00uqn$325p1$6@dont-email.me> <v0134a$3q1fd$2@dont-email.me> <875xwbn9ec.fsf@hope.eyrie.org> Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:30:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e2a5cbffd9d77717898ac1f44c4bf45"; logging-data="1822433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PHtVmvq/XUJ0DowRfxtfBwNSynbMAzxEyQ4ZR7yQQEA==" User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:GgfEoOVzVdVWwGgEREcnjrJCzrs= X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]% b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA]<D Bytes: 3958 Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org> wrote at 19:04 this Saturday (GMT): > Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes: >> On 20.04.2024 um 17:42 Uhr The Bjornsdottirs - Lightning wrote: > >>> When I come across Usenet admins, they cannot clearly say that they >>> will ban and filter anyone they come across committing harassment, >>> nor that they will institute a code of conduct which is actively >>> antifascist, because the values of the network are not actively >>> antifascist and in fact tend towards calling antifascists whiners. > >> This is something every newsmaster can decide himself. > > Sort of. The NNTP and netnews protocols have exceptionally poor support > for moderation compared to just about any other message board software, > since essentially everything else was designed after NNTP and netnews and > learned from its shortcomings. > > You can insert an extremely heavy moderation step in front of all traffic > (but only for private groups or if you can reach an agreement with your > transitive peers), but the protocol is completely insecure, and while > there are patchwork solutions to that, you have to implement them > yourself. Or you have to rely on filtering, which is a very poor > moderation strategy that requires endless arms races with people trying to > bypass it. > > And all of the more advanced tools available in newer protocols simply > aren't there (for better or worse; Usenet people usually don't like most > of these, but people running other types of message board systems use them > heavily): migrating messages to different threads, closing threads, user > authentication and all the things that come with that such as poster bans > or pre-moderation for new users but not established users, etc. About the > only thing you can do is delete the message off your server after the > fact, and the tools for doing that are very primitive. You can simulate > some of this by writing a whole pile of custom software that sits in the > pre-moderation path, but now you've signed on for the project of writing a > moderation system from scratch. The protocol and existing software base > are doing essentially nothing for you. > > A lot of people prefer the Usenet model for various reasons, and that's > fine, that's something people can argue about. But Usenet's moderation > and filtering facilities are staggeringly primitive, and if those are a > priority for you, Usenet is a bad technology choice and you should use > something else. Well said. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom