Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >> [...] >> >> I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control >> membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". >> Education cheerfully accepted ;} >> >> > Not really. Moderated meant that posts were filtered through one or > more moderators for approval. Now that provided (provides) some degree > of control over who can post, it says nothing about who can read > messages (account on a machine that subscribes to the newsgroup). It's > possible to rigidly control the machines that receive messages, and > potentially control accounts on those machines - but that's a > hard-to-implement approach. Now, if traffic were encrypted, and there > was an out-of-band key management system (e.g., something like Kerberos > or OAuth) - one could then apply global restrictions on who could > actually read traffic sent to a particular newsgroup.
It has always been my understanding that "newsgroups" were somewhat intended to be publicly readable -- i.e. "this is the current news". Mailing lists, on the other hand were the ones that were somewhat more (semi-)private discourse. I'm not really sure "intended" is the right choice of word here though. I mean, reality tends to distort "a creator's intent" pretty well. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
