Re: No posting flag

In <B4F3927BBA3A4D19A1265D9882A27072@Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= <[email protected]> writes:

>Hi,

>I thought it might be worth forwarding this remark from D. Stussy in
>news.software.nntp <news:[email protected]>.

>> 2)  I have also noticed that some local/regional/special hierarchies gate
>> mailing lists in a ONE WAY fashion.  For them, the appropriate moderation
>> status in the active file is "n".  Perhaps the "checkgroups" control
>> messages should handle this with a "(No Posting)" tag, similar to that of
>> "(Moderated)", in the description field.  Group creation should also support
>> this.

>" (No Posting)" or " (No posting)" maybe should be added to the newgroups line.

>Instead of:

>      newsgroups-line     = newsgroup-name
>                               [ 1*HTAB newsgroup-description ]
>                               [ *WSP moderation-flag ]
>      moderation-flag     = SP "(" %x4D.6F.64.65.72.61.74.65.64 ")"
>                               ; SPACE + case sensitive "(Moderated)"

>having status-flag which can be moderation-flag or nopost-flag.

Such a flag would be meaningless except in moderated groups (and one-way
groups really OUGHT to be moderated). Otherwise postings to the group would
succeed and propagate normally thoughout Usenet, even if they did not get
back to the mailint list.

Even if your intention was that presence of the flag in a checkgroups
would change the ACTIVE flag to 'n', no existing server would do so, and
it would be a long time before it was widely adopted.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5