On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:53 PM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Bill Bogstad wrote: > >>> That's easy. Run separate servers, and if you share the groups, require >>> members of your NNTP trust circle to do the same. There are several >>> historical and extant examples. >>> >>> It's not clear to me that you would want to do so, rather than >>> make it a public group and ask gwene to gateway it for people >>> who want web/archive access. >> >> >> Usually LOPSA groups have a pretty good signal/noise ratio. My concern >> would be that unmoderated, publicly distributed newsgroups which were >> bidirectionally gatewayed to the mailing lists would be subject to the >> "Eternal September" problem. As simply a way to access the archive >> (or participate in a readonly) mode, it might be useful. Alternatively. >> making it a moderated, public newsgroup on the USENET side would >> alleviate my concerns. > > > Please explain a bit more. Why would the LOPSA NNTP feed have any worse a > signal-to-noise ratio?
I thought I covered that by the "Eternal September" comment. An open NNTP feed without moderation would, in my opinion, be subject to flyby newbies who have no clue and have no desire to get one. Yes, some USENET groups did have good SNRs; but it wasn't always easy to maintain. If we were to allow open bidirectional NNTP feeds (as opposed to just authenticated newsreaders), we would lose our ability to protect us from this. > I would actually run a separate server and do a outbound only link to the > USENET side (is USENET still around as a cohernet thing?) So you see NNTP access as read-only, much like the archive? That might bring LOPSA more visibility; but would be annoying for members who also want to participate. Or are you suggesting a members only NNTP server (posting allowed); but a read-only feed to the rest of the world. I haven't looked at NNTP clients in a long while and am not sure if any of them work well in a disconnected fashion. There is something called "leafnode" that might help with that for the technically inclined. :-) It even had a new release in 2013. > The interesting thing is that to get a good mailing list <-> web forum > integration, every approach I know of ends up with a NNTP feed as a side > effect, so if we are going to have one, why not make it available for those > who want it? Depending on how it is done, possible loss of control? If it is easy to setup, I think readonly NNTP is a no brainer. Posting via open NNTP is my concern. Mailing lists almost always have some kind of filter to avoid spam. Popular web forums have voting or moderators for similar reasons. What's the best way to do this for NNTP? Bill Bogstad _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
