3rd RfD: Mass-deletion of moderated groups without a moderator

[Usenet Big-8 Management Board]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.


RATIONALE:

Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.


DISCUSSION SO FAR:

noel, Christian Schumacher, and Vasos Panagiotopoulos argued for
having at least some groups' moderation flag unset rather than
deleting the groups. Ivo Gandolfo countered that many servers would
not properly apply the change in moderation flag.

Marco Moock said that cleaning up unused groups will make it easier
for users to find active groups; he acknowledged that some servers
don't process control articles but wondered why he should care about
these servers. Julien ÉLIE said that people will appreciate a
cleaned-up newsgroups list and that it doesn't matter if some servers
don't process the control articles. Julius Bernotas said that groups
should be deleted when they no longer fulfill their purpose.
Jean-Paul agreed with Marco that cleaning up unused groups will make
it easier for users to find active groups. Christian Schumacher said
that he looks for newsgroups by name, not by traffic.

noel argued that deleting a few hundred groups will not make it
significantly easier to find active groups. Julien ÉLIE agreed and
said that unmoderated groups should also be cleaned up.

In a separate discussion on news.groups, Adam H. Kerman said that the
RFD was not being distributed widely enough, including to potential
moderators of the specific groups in the RFD. To the argument that
removing unused groups makes active groups easier to find, he
responded that users can find these via keyword search and by
attempting to post to them. D expressed "no objections your honour"
to the RFD, later noting that 10% of currently active newsgroups are
moderated, but that the remaining 90% unmoderated active newsgroups
are overrun by trolls and spam. Paul Schleck suggested a mechanism
for crossposting a pointer to RFD to the affected groups.

Also on news.groups, Steve Bonine warned that when groups are removed,
the history associated with the contents of the group will disappear,
which could hinder people doing (historical) research. He agreed that
removing the unused groups in the RFD would prevent users from wasting
their time posting into the void, but said that at this time it's not
worth the effort to delete them. Winston shared Steve Bonine's
concern about the contents of deleted groups disappearing. Computer
Nerd Kev said that converting the groups to unmoderated ones may work
around this problem.

Computer Nerd Kev pointed out that rec.arts.movies.reviews has seen
recent activity and sees a chance to revive it. (The Board
subsequently investigated this and confirmed that the group has no
moderation address registered; the sole active poster, who they were
unable to reach for comment, seems to be circumventing this by posting
articles with an Approved header to a lenient server.) The Board also
received an e-mail from someone volunteering to moderate
soc.genealogy.surnames.britain and is currently in correspondence with
them. In light of these developments, rec.arts.movies.reviews and
soc.genealogy.surnames.britain were excluded from the 2nd RFD.


DISTRIBUTION:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.groups

Following feedback received from the earlier RFDs, the Board will
attempt to post targeted notices of this proposal in groups topically
related to each one under discussion, such as its parent group, its
sibling *.misc group, and/or the *.misc group of some other ancestor.


PROCEDURE:

This 3rd RFD will run for at least 4 weeks. The group lists may be
revised during this stage and additional RFDs posted as necessary.
Discussion about candidate groups should take place in the moderated
group news.groups.proposals. Following the conclusion of the final
RFD, we will issue a Last Call for Comments (LCC), after which the
Board will vote. If there are specific reasons to vote individually
for some groups, the Board will do, but the default will be a ballot
covering all groups.

More details can be found here:

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Mass_removal_of_groups


NEWSGROUP LINES:

comp.binaries.cbm For the transfer of 8bit Commodore binaries.
(Moderated)
comp.doc.techreports Lists of technical reports. (Moderated)
comp.internet.library Discussing electronic libraries. (Moderated)
comp.lang.c.moderated The C programming language. (Moderated)
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
(Moderated)
comp.org.cauce The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial
E-Mail. (Moderated)
comp.robotics.research Academic, government & industry research in
robotics. (Moderated)
comp.simulation Simulation methods, problems, uses. (Moderated)
comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica Mathematica discussion group. (Moderated)
comp.sources.games Postings of recreational software. (Moderated)
comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
(Moderated)
comp.sys.amiga.announce Announcements about the Amiga. (Moderated)
comp.sys.sun.announce Sun announcements and Sunergy mailings. (Moderated)
humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated)
misc.activism.progressive Information for Progressive activists.
(Moderated)
misc.business.consulting The business of consulting. (Moderated)
misc.business.marketing.moderated Roundtable for marketing topics.
(Moderated)
misc.business.moderated Roundtable for general business topics. (Moderated)
misc.entrepreneurs.moderated Entrepreneur/business topics. (Moderated)
misc.invest.financial-plan Financial planning in general. (Moderated)
misc.transport.air-industry Airlines, airports, commercial aircraft.
(Moderated)
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated Craft/business of screenwriting.
(Moderated)
news.admin.net-abuse.policy Discussion of net abuse policy. (Moderated)
news.announce.conferences Calls for papers and conferences.
(Moderated)
rec.arts.anime.creative Original works by fans, related to anime/manga.
(Moderated)
rec.arts.anime.info Announcements about Japanese animation. (Moderated)
rec.arts.ascii ASCII art, info on archives, art, & artists.
(Moderated)
rec.arts.drwho.moderated Discussion of "Doctor Who". (Moderated)
rec.arts.erotica Erotic fiction and verse. (Moderated)
rec.arts.movies.erotica Aspects of erotic films and videos. (Moderated)
rec.arts.sf.announce Major announcements of the SF world. (Moderated)
rec.arts.sf.starwars.info General information pertaining to Star
Wars. (Moderated)
rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated Discussion of Formula One racing.
(Moderated)
rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated NASCAR and Stockcar Racing.
(Moderated)
rec.boats.marketplace Boating products for sale and wanted. (Moderated)
rec.crafts.jewelry Jewelry making and gemology. (Moderated)
rec.drugs.announce Announcements about drugs and related issues.
(Moderated)
rec.food.cuisine.jewish All matters concerning Jewish cuisine. (Moderated)
rec.food.recipes Recipes for interesting food and drink. (Moderated)
rec.gardens.ecosystems Ecosystems and organic gardening. (Moderated)
rec.humor.funny Jokes that are funny (in the moderator's
opinion). (Moderated)
rec.humor.funny.reruns Reposts of rec.humor.funny archive material.
(Moderated)
rec.martial-arts.moderated Martial-arts in general. (Moderated)
rec.music.beatles.info Latest press notes about the Beatles. (Moderated)
rec.music.beatles.moderated Fab Four analytical & investigative
articles. (Moderated)
rec.music.gaffa Discussion of Kate Bush & other alternative
music. (Moderated)
rec.music.info News and announcements on musical topics.
(Moderated)
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and
performance. (Moderated)
rec.music.promotional Information and promo materials from record
companies. (Moderated)
rec.music.reviews Reviews of music of all genres and mediums.
(Moderated)
rec.pets.dogs.info General information and FAQs posted here.
(Moderated)
rec.pets.ferrets Forum on ferret care and husbandry. (Moderated)
rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)
rec.skiing.alpine.moderated Alpine (downhill) skiing. (Moderated)
rec.skiing.announce FAQ, competition results, automated snow
reports. (Moderated)
sci.aeronautics The science of aeronautics & related technology.
(Moderated)
sci.archaeology.moderated All aspects of archaeology. (Moderated)
sci.bio.evolution Discussions of evolutionary biology. (Moderated)
sci.bio.phytopathology All aspects of plant diseases and pests. (Moderated)
sci.chem.organic.synthesis Synthetic organic chemistry related
topics. (Moderated)
sci.econ.research Research in all fields of economics. (Moderated)
sci.med.orthopedics Orthopedic Surgery, related issues and
management. (Moderated)
sci.military.moderated Military technology. (Moderated)
sci.nanotech Self-reproducing molecular-scale machines.
(Moderated)
sci.physics.foundations Fundamental and philosophical physics. (Moderated)
sci.physics.strings String theory and related fields. (Moderated)
sci.space.moderated Discussions about space related topics. (Moderated)
sci.space.news Announcements of space-related news items.
(Moderated)
soc.adoption.adoptees Discussion of adoption by adoptees. (Moderated)
soc.atheism Living as an atheist and atheism in society.
(Moderated)
soc.culture.african.american.moderated African-American perspectives.
(Moderated)
soc.culture.basque Basque culture and related issues. (Moderated)
soc.culture.belarus All things about Belarus. (Moderated)
soc.culture.hawaii Aloha kakou, E KOMO MAI! Eh, no forget hemo da
shoes. (Moderated)
soc.culture.indian.goa About Goa, India's smallest state. (Moderated)
soc.culture.jewish.parenting Issues about raising Jewish children.
(Moderated)
soc.culture.kuwait.moderated Kuwaiti culture, society, and history.
(Moderated)
soc.culture.turkish.moderated Issues related to Turks/Turkey. (Moderated)
soc.feminism Discussion of feminism & feminist issues.
(Moderated)
soc.genealogy.african Genealogy of Africa and the African Diaspora.
(Moderated)
soc.genealogy.surnames.canada Surnames queries - Canada. (Moderated)
soc.genealogy.surnames.german Surnames queries - German speaking
countries. (Moderated)
soc.genealogy.surnames.global Surnames queries central database.
(Moderated)
soc.genealogy.surnames.misc Surnames - regions not covered
elsewhere. (Moderated)
soc.genealogy.surnames.usa Surnames queries - USA. (Moderated)
soc.history.moderated All aspects of history. (Moderated)
soc.personals Personal ads -- people in search of (ISO)
others. (Moderated)
soc.politics Political problems, systems, solutions. (Moderated)
soc.politics.marxism Karl Marx and his legacy in theory and practice.
(Moderated)
soc.religion.asatru Following the Gods and Goddesses of Northern
Europe. (Moderated)
soc.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. (Moderated)
soc.religion.hindu Discussion about the Hindu dharma, philosophy,
culture. (Moderated)
soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
(Moderated)
soc.religion.paganism Networking for Pagans. (Moderated)
soc.religion.unitarian-univ Unitarian-Universalism & non-creedal
religions. (Moderated)
soc.sexuality.spanking Adult sexual spanking. (Moderated)
soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Self-acceptance for fat people.
(Moderated)
soc.support.loneliness Mutual help and chat for those of us who feel
alone. (Moderated)
soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi Gay youths helping each other.
(Moderated)


If you have any objections, please make them heard in moderated group
news.groups.proposals. The "Followup-To:" header is set on this message,
so simply replying to this post should do the right thing.


HISTORY OF THIS RFD:

2025-01-03: 1st RFD (remove)
2025-02-02: 2nd RFD (remove)
rec.arts.movies.reviews excluded
soc.genealogy.surnames.britain excluded
2025-03-11: 3rd RFD (remove)

[Keith Thompson]

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.

comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.

However, I'm concerned that removing the group would lose existing
posts. That's honestly probably not a huge deal, but it would be
a pity IMHO.

Would it be possible to leave comp.lang.c.moderated as it is (can't
post to it, but servers with sufficiently long memories still allow
old articles to be read)?

If that's not feasible, it should be possible for someone (maybe
even me) to take over as moderator to keep the group alive, but
not allow any new posts. This would be an alternate way to keep
the status quo.

Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern. I've emailed the former moderator, who
may or may not choose to weigh in.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Keith Thompson
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern.

Alas, netfunny.com is just a default Apache page... unless you
know something I don't?

[Keith Thompson]

Post by Keith Thompson
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern.

Alas, netfunny.com is just a default Apache page... unless you know
something I don't?

<https://netfunny.com/> gives a "Your connection is not private"
message. When I proceed, it forwards to <https://www.netfunny.com/rhf/>,
which is the web page for "Brad Templeton's Rec.Humor.Funny".
(I've emailed Brad and told him about the certificate problem.)

[Marco Moock]

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator
for a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it
unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new moderator.
Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group
listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management
Board.

comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.

The I think deleting is the best option. The idea is to keep usenet
usable, which means defunct stuff will be removed.

Post by Keith Thompson
However, I'm concerned that removing the group would lose existing
posts. That's honestly probably not a huge deal, but it would be
a pity IMHO.

Archives like narkive.com exist which don't delete groups when rmgroup
messages are being sent.

Post by Keith Thompson
Would it be possible to leave comp.lang.c.moderated as it is (can't
post to it, but servers with sufficiently long memories still allow
old articles to be read)?

Technically it would be, but I prefer to either make it usable or delete
it.
Archive servers may keep it anyway.

Post by Keith Thompson
If that's not feasible, it should be possible for someone (maybe
even me) to take over as moderator to keep the group alive, but
not allow any new posts. This would be an alternate way to keep
the status quo.

That makes no sense because the group is still unusable.

Post by Keith Thompson
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern. I've emailed the former moderator, who
may or may not choose to weigh in.

Please tell me the outcome of that.

At least this is also defunct for more that 10 years. If nobody wants
to be a moderator, I keep advocating for deletion.

[Keith Thompson]

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator
for a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it
unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new moderator.
Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group
listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management
Board.

comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.

The I think deleting is the best option. The idea is to keep usenet
usable, which means defunct stuff will be removed.

The NNTP server I use, eternal-september.org, currently has 27,002
newsgroups. I presume that nobody reads all of them. I hardly think
that having a handful of newsgroups that are no longer active would make
Usenet any less usable.

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Keith Thompson
However, I'm concerned that removing the group would lose existing
posts. That's honestly probably not a huge deal, but it would be
a pity IMHO.

Archives like narkive.com exist which don't delete groups when rmgroup
messages are being sent.

As far as I can tell, narkive.com doesn't exist.

If there are archives that keep articles from deleted groups, I'm less
concerned -- but such archives are not well known. groups.google.com
still has comp.lang.c.moderated articles, and since they no longer
interact with Usenet I presume they wouldn't delete the articles if the
newsgroup were deleted.

Post by Marco Moock

Post by Keith Thompson
Would it be possible to leave comp.lang.c.moderated as it is (can't
post to it, but servers with sufficiently long memories still allow
old articles to be read)?

Technically it would be, but I prefer to either make it usable or delete
it.
Archive servers may keep it anyway.

Post by Keith Thompson
If that's not feasible, it should be possible for someone (maybe
even me) to take over as moderator to keep the group alive, but
not allow any new posts. This would be an alternate way to keep
the status quo.

That makes no sense because the group is still unusable.

It would not be usable for new posts, but existing posts would
still be available. Perhaps you wouldn't find that useful. I would.

[...]

[Keith Thompson]

[...]

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Marco Moock
Archives like narkive.com exist which don't delete groups when rmgroup
messages are being sent.

As far as I can tell, narkive.com doesn't exist.

Apparently it was down when I tried to access it before, or there was a
connectivity problem somewhere. I can see it now.

<emily_litella>Never mind.</emily_litella>

[...]

[D Finnigan]

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.

comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.

This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

Otherwise, the Big-8 Board could omit it from this list of 99 moderated
groups.

[Marco Moock]

Post by D Finnigan

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the
following 99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of
the lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a
moderator for a long time and have been unused for years. We
consider it unlikely that they will ever be revived with a new
moderator. Nonetheless, anyone interested in becoming a moderator
for a group listed in this RFD is invited to contact the Big-8
Management Board.

comp.lang.c.moderated is in this list. It has had no active
moderator and no traffic since 2014. Discussions on comp.lang.c
indicate that at least some people would participate in a revived
comp.lang.c.moderated, but there's little or no support for actually
reviving it.

This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time
there was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I can't find an MWI that came after the group was/is defunct.
https://comp.lang.c.moderated.narkive.com/

I also can't find it on the big-8 website. Maybe some older people know
it, I wasn't using Usenet before 2021.

Post by D Finnigan
Otherwise, the Big-8 Board could omit it from this list of 99
moderated groups.

We could, but if there is no person who wants to moderate it, it will
be deleted. comp.lang.c exists and is being used as an unmoderated
alternative.

[Keith Thompson]

D Finnigan <***@macgui.com> writes:
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.

I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator. He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off. We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c. One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Post by D Finnigan
Otherwise, the Big-8 Board could omit it from this list of 99
moderated groups.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.

Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?

Post by Keith Thompson
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off. We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c. One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).

If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would
be in that category.

Post by Keith Thompson
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Count me in for 4½%. I think Tim would be willing, too.

[Richard Harnden]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.

Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?

Post by Keith Thompson
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.  We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.  One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).

If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be in
that category.

Post by Keith Thompson
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Count me in for 4½%. I think Tim would be willing, too.

Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?

[Keith Thompson]

Post by Richard Harnden

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.

Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?

Post by Keith Thompson
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.  We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.  One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).

If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
in that category.

Post by Keith Thompson
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Count me in for 4½%. I think Tim would be willing, too.

Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?

comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP
servers with sufficiently long memories. One way to do that would be
just to leave it out of the proposed mass-deletion. Another would be
for a new moderator to take over but not approve any posts, perhaps with
an email auto-responder to let any posters know what's going on.

But I'm open to seeing clcmod revived if there's enough demand, and
perhaps helping out somehow.

[Dan Cross]

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Richard Harnden

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.

Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?

Post by Keith Thompson
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.  We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.  One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).

If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
in that category.

Post by Keith Thompson
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Count me in for 4œ%. I think Tim would be willing, too.

Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?

comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP
servers with sufficiently long memories.

Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.

There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?

Post by Keith Thompson
One way to do that would be
just to leave it out of the proposed mass-deletion. Another would be
for a new moderator to take over but not approve any posts, perhaps with
an email auto-responder to let any posters know what's going on.
But I'm open to seeing clcmod revived if there's enough demand, and
perhaps helping out somehow.

I remember when c.l.c.m was newgrouped; it was done to deal with
the huge influx of noise due to new users who hadn't been versed
in netiquette. Those days are past, and not coming back, so the
original motivation for it is gone.

Leaving it existant but unuseable (since no one can post to it)
just on the off chance that there exists a server somewhere that
both has articles that had been posted to it in the past and
would delete those if the group were removed seems fragile and
not likely to be useful, long term.

However, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make it UNmoderated,
given the name. My 2c is either find a new moderator or team of
moderators, or remove it.

- Dan C.

[Keith Thompson]

Post by Dan Cross

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by Richard Harnden

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
This group could be a candidate for an MVI. When's the last time there
was an MVI for comp.lang.c.moderated?

I had to look it up: an MVI is a Moderator Vacancy Investigation.
There's no need for an investigation.
I've been exchanging emails with the previous moderator.

Been there; done that; how d'you like the t-shirt?

Post by Keith Thompson
He's too
busy to take up moderation duties again, but he still has the
account and is willing to hand it off.  We've also been discussing
it in comp.lang.c.  One user in comp.lang.c has expressed interest
in having comp.lang.c.moderated revived as an active newsgroup.
Several others have not necessarily advocated reviving it, but
would participate if it were revived (I'm in that category myself).

If the group were actively (i.e. promptly) moderated, I too would be
in that category.

Post by Keith Thompson
It's likely that one or more people would be willing to serve as
co-moderators (nobody has volunteered to take on 100% of moderation
duties).

Count me in for 4½%. I think Tim would be willing, too.

Does c.l.c have so much off-topic traffic that a c.l.c-moderated is
really necessary?

comp.lang.c does have a lot of off-topic traffic. I personally don't
think that reviving comp.lang.c.moderated would be a good solution to
that. My personal preference would be for clcmod to remain the way it
is: an inactive newsgroup whose old articles are still available on NNTP
servers with sufficiently long memories.

Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.
There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?

news.blueworldhosting.com shows 9540 articles in comp.lang.c.moderated
going back to 2006.

groups.google.com and narkive.com have archived articles (I don't know
how complete the archives are), but via ugly (IMHO) web interfaces.

[...]

[Dan Cross]

Post by Keith Thompson

[snip]
Surely most news servers that carried it have long-ago expired
all of the articles that they received that were posted to it.
There may be a handful with exceptionally long memories, but
would those honor an rmgroup for it, anyway?

news.blueworldhosting.com shows 9540 articles in comp.lang.c.moderated
going back to 2006.

Oh that's cool. But that's just one server.

Post by Keith Thompson
groups.google.com and narkive.com have archived articles (I don't know
how complete the archives are), but via ugly (IMHO) web interfaces.
[...]

groups.google.com is, at this point, completely disconnected
from USENET, so won't even see the rmgroup. I have no idea
what narkive will do; I've never quite figured out how to use
it's interface (there are some surprisingly pathological
behaviors I've never figured out how to work around).

- Dan C.

[Marco Moock]

Post by Dan Cross
groups.google.com is, at this point, completely disconnected
from USENET, so won't even see the rmgroup. I have no idea
what narkive will do; I've never quite figured out how to use
it's interface (there are some surprisingly pathological
behaviors I've never figured out how to work around).

In the past they didn't process rmgroup control messages. If you want
to know more, ask the operator:
Davide Cavion <***@narkive.com>

[Rayner Lucas]

Post by Keith Thompson
Also, rec.humor.funny is on the list. I believe that all articles
are archived at netfunny.com, so losing Usenet archives might not
be as much of a concern. I've emailed the former moderator, who
may or may not choose to weigh in.

I also emailed the most recent moderators, Brad Templeton and Jim
Griffith. I got a reply from Brad indicating that the group is not
currently in operation, but that he would be open to recruiting a new
moderator for it.

Anyone wishing to volunteer can find Brad's contact details at the
bottom of his home page here: https://www.templetons.com/brad/. I've
also offered to help with moderation if needed, as has fellow Board
member Tristan Miller. Hopefully this means it'll be possible to
revive the group in some fashion; given its place in the history of
Usenet it would be nice to keep it around.

R

[Florian Rehnisch]

comp.binaries.cbm For the transfer of 8bit Commodore binaries. (Moderated)

Being a long-time C= User (only Amigas, but I own an C=64 emulation
cd-rom), I don't see the vanish of this group as a big loss. However,
the cbm 8bit groups seem to be scattered troughout comp.*, on a quick
search I found these two groups:

#v+
comp.sys.cbm Discussion about Commodore micros.
comp.emulators.cbm Emulators of C-64, C-128, PET, and VIC-20 systems.
#v-

Why not a big loss? Because the vast majority of Commo stuff should be
on archives on the www now.

[Rayner Lucas]

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.
Currently, these groups cannot be used for discussion because of the
lack of a moderator. Most of these groups haven't had a moderator for
a long time and have been unused for years. We consider it unlikely
that they will ever be revived with a new moderator. Nonetheless,
anyone interested in becoming a moderator for a group listed in this
RFD is invited to contact the Big-8 Management Board.

Thinking in a general sense about the problem of these unusable groups,
it seems to me there are several possible ways we could choose to deal
with each group. In approximate order from most to least desirable,
these are:

- Find a moderator for the group
- Convert the group to unmoderated (if we assume that this would
work as intended)
- Place the group under automated robo-moderation (possibly as a
temporary precursor to one of the other actions)
- Delete the group
- Do nothing

The groups fall into some rough categories, based on which actions
would be appropriate:

- Groups with little likelihood of being resurrected. This would
include groups for obsolete or extremely niche topics, and groups
for topics that are well served by other, more active groups. These
probably ought to be deleted, as the other options are unlikely
to achieve anything useful.
- Groups that need to be moderated for naming or charter reasons.
Examples would be groups with "moderated" in the name, or groups
such as rec.humor.funny that are intended to be curated.
- Groups that need to be moderated because they are troll/flame
magnets, such as groups for controversial or sensitive topics.
- Groups that could plausibly be robo-moderated or converted to
unmoderated. This would include groups that are still of current
interest, but that are not especially likely to attract trolls,
spammers, or other abuse.

For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of
robo-moderation service for them. This would have a couple of benefits:
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.

A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without
moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.

Thoughts?

R

[Paul W. Schleck]

In <vqtir0$2ukis$***@dont-email.me> Rayner Lucas <***@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:

[...]

Post by Rayner Lucas
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without
moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R

Two main issues come to mind:

- Long-term commitment

Not necessarily saying that it applies here, but there have been
multiple past efforts to save or robo-moderate newsgroups by parties who
might have even had a direct subject-matter interest in the specific
newsgroups. They eventually gave up because the newsgroups were empty
or they wound up only relaying trash (abuse, off-topic, and SPAM). They
didn't have topic knowledge for the newsgroups to try and jump-start
activity with informational postings and/or discussion starters. Also,
don't expect gratitude or financial support from the Usenet community
for your efforts. You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong"
things (whatever others think "wrong" is). Will your provider charge by
the byte? Do you have the resources to pay for long-term access to bulk
Usenet? What happens if you go away (other time commitments, health,
death, etc.). Who will take over?

- Ethical considerations

What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful (offshore
gambling, marketing scams, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) or
denial-of-service flooding? Will others understand that even though you
are the poster, you are just automatically relaying it without review?
Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you? Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?

--
Paul W. Schleck
***@panix.com

[D Finnigan]

Post by Paul W. Schleck
- Ethical considerations
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...]

I expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in
that event.

[Paul W. Schleck]

Post by D Finnigan

Post by Paul W. Schleck
- Ethical considerations
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful [...]

I expect that a reasonable person would shut off the robo-moderator in
that event.

I expect that a reasonable person would not be able to react in time to
an unpredictable and short-duration SPAM or flooding incident and the
automatically approved articles would post to the newsgroups unimpeded.
For a slow or no traffic newsgroup, the approved articles would be
mostly or all SPAM and flooding, which still exists on moderator
submission addresses, even post-Google Groups. Shutting off the
robo-moderator would be closing the gate after the horse bolted.

Do we expect the administrators of this robomoderation gateway to employ
sophisticated monitoring and alerting, and that they would respond
quickly to any incident, 24/7? That's a lot to ask. Furthermore, if
they do shut off the robo-moderator, what do they do with any rejected
submissions after shutoff? Dump all of them? Queue them up to manually
go through them to pick out only the approvable ones?

Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is
starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant
workload for one volunteer long-term.

--
Paul W. Schleck
***@panix.com

[D Finnigan]

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is
starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant
workload for one volunteer long-term.

Are you volunteering to run the robo-moderator?

[Paul W. Schleck]

Post by D Finnigan

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Such a service would realistically have to employ monitoring/alerting,
SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate detection, rate limiting,
and manual review of any queued articles for false positives. This is
starting to resemble the duties of a human moderator, and a significant
workload for one volunteer long-term.

Are you volunteering to run the robo-moderator?
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without
moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?
R

Personally, I think this robo-moderation idea has the risk of being a
lot of effort for little reward. However, in the spirit of constructive
feedback, since it was solicited, I tried to walk everyone through some
use-case/role-playing exercises to see how this might work out in actual
practice. I wanted Rayner and the rest of the group to consider if they
really wanted to go down this road, and if they realistically have the
time, interest, and resources to make it succeed. I also wanted
everyone to be mindful of past failures and consider how this latest
effort would mitigate them.

For example, the Panix STUMP infrastructure that the Big-8 Board uses to
moderate its newsgroups (including news.announce.newgroups) could be
pressed into service for the robo-moderation gateway. It can already do
monitoring/alerting, SPAM filtering, keyword trapping, duplicate
detection, and manual review of any queued articles for false positives.
It currently does not do rate limiting, but that could be easily added
as a new automatic rejection category with configuration settings and
some scripts.

--
Paul W. Schleck
***@panix.com

[noel]

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Personally, I think this robo-moderation idea has the risk of being a
lot of effort for little reward.

I agree with this statement.

It's less work to implement the previous mod flag suggested solution, if
a server accepts and makes that change, good, if not, so be it.

Cheers

[Rayner Lucas]

Post by Paul W. Schleck

[snip suggestion of robo-moderating some groups]

Not necessarily saying that it applies here, but there have been
multiple past efforts to save or robo-moderate newsgroups by parties who
might have even had a direct subject-matter interest in the specific
newsgroups. They eventually gave up because the newsgroups were empty
or they wound up only relaying trash (abuse, off-topic, and SPAM).

This is the reason I suggested that it could be a temporary measure. If no
on-topic posts materialise after a set period, despite making it known that
the group is accepting submissions, that's a very strong argument in favour
of proceeding with deletion.

Post by Paul W. Schleck
You may even be criticized for doing the "wrong" things (whatever others
think "wrong" is).

Criticism, on Usenet? Surely not! :-)

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Will your provider charge by the byte? Do you have the resources to
pay for long-term access to bulk Usenet? What happens if you go away
(other time commitments, health, death, etc.). Who will take over?

I already co-moderate several groups, so I have a rough idea of what's
likely to be required in terms of bandwidth and resources.

The intent here would specifically be not to end up doing it long-term.
And if I got hit by a bus, the groups would be in no worse state than they
are now.

Post by Paul W. Schleck
What if you just wind up automatically relaying off-topic material and
SPAM? What if some or all of the content is unlawful (offshore
gambling, marketing scams, drugs, human trafficking, etc.) or
denial-of-service flooding? Will others understand that even though you
are the poster, you are just automatically relaying it without review?

TBH I don't think it'd be reasonable to make it entirely automated. There
comes a point of diminishing returns where you spend more time writing
convoluted, error-prone filters than you would by just blocking the
easiest 80% and rejecting the remaining abuse manually.

Post by Paul W. Schleck
Do the laws in your jurisdiction protect you? Do you have the resources
to obtain legal advice and representation if you get into trouble?

A good question. The UK's Online Safety Act has been written by people who
have almost certainly never heard of Usenet, let alone understood it, with
the result that it's unclear how current legislation applies. At least one
Usenet-based service, Newsgrouper, plans to block UK users to avoid
potential liability. The lobste.rs discussion forum has also considered
geoblocking UK users, but for now has decided against it; their notes and
explanations are here: lobste.rs/c/xevn8a

As a moderation system does not display online content to the general
public, and one could reasonably argue that it's an exempt email-based
service, it seems likely to me that it would not be affected by this
legislation. However, I'd want to consult someone qualified to be sure.

I am not committing to anything at this point, and I'd only want to do it
for groups that seem to me to have a decent chance of being used. But if
it looks like something that might help, I have the ability and will to
give it a try.

R

[D Finnigan]

Post by Rayner Lucas
For groups in the latter category, I'm considering setting up some kind of
it would give time to try converting a group to unmoderated as a test
case, and would also permit seeing whether anyone is still attempting
to post to the groups. It could therefore serve as a temporary measure
if it's unclear what the best course of action would be.
A robo-moderation system could also be a starting point for a more
general moderation platform. Currently, a serious problem is that
prospective moderators can't simply start moderating a group: they need
to set up email addresses, install and configure software (most of which
is outdated and awkward to set up), and get their Usenet provider to
allow them to post approved messages (which not all providers will be
willing to do). If we're going to have a mass deletion of groups without
moderators, I think we also ought to make sure that moderating a group
is not an unreasonably difficult thing to start doing.
Thoughts?

I agree that robo-moderation for certain groups, on a test basis, is a
good idea. The robo-moderator could be configured with some basic checks
against flooding. Otherwise, it seems to me that the risk is a small
one, as whoever controls the robo-moderator can disable it or modify it
if needed.

We could let the robo-moderator run for 6 months or a year and see what,
if any, new articles come in.

[Ivan Shmakov]

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the following
99 moderated newsgroups.

I have to admit that I've had little interest in moderated
newsgroups so far, so I guess my thoughts below are to be taken
with a grain of salt.

Overall, I support the efforts of the Board to keep the portion
of the news: namespace they are responsible for clean. That
a particular newsserver may carry many newsgroups from many
other namespaces, including unmaintained ones (such as alt.*,
by design) should be of no consequence to the Board policies.

With regards to moderation, as a user, I'd expect *.moderated
newsgroups to be moderated, and if no one volunteers for the
job, to be removed. Given that Usenet is, at this time, a kind
of a niche medium, with relatively few users, and hence limited
supply of potential moderators, I believe that while MVIs should
be initiated as promptly as possible, discussions of possible
removal are to be delayed until at least a year passes since an
article is last successfully approved to the group at hand.

Same applies to announcement newsgroups (such as *.announce
and, e. g., comp.newprod), as well as newsgroups that might be
oriented more at publishing and collaborating on works rather
than discussion proper (rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,
rec.arts.ascii.)

I would prefer other groups to, as a rule, become unmoderated
if no one volunteers to be their moderator.

I agree that such a change won't necessarily revive a group.
However, a newly unmoderated group /might/ become active,
while a deleted group certainly won't.

I think that a viable approach to moderation would be to have
a whitelist of good faith posters to each newsgroup, so that
the moderator would only need to consider posts by infrequent
users, or those who aren't particularly observant of the group's
charter.

Having little prior interest in moderated newsgroups, I'm not
familiar with the moderation process, or at least its technical
details; however, I have for a long time had interest in netnews
and Internet standards in general, so I'd be willing to give it
a try, including entirely by myself. However, my preference
would be to be a part of a team instead, as I don't feel ready
to invest effort in the process on a daily basis.

I'd be interested in (co)moderating the following groups.

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
(Moderated)
comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
(Moderated)
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and performance.
(Moderated)
rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)

Groups that I'd be monitoring were they "reactivated," either
by becoming unmoderated (which would be my preference, except
for news:rec.arts.ascii; and provided that their new status
isn't at odds with their respective charters, which I haven't
checked), or by finding a new moderator.

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
comp.simulation Simulation methods, problems, uses. (Moderated)
rec.arts.ascii ASCII art, info on archives, art, & artists.
(Moderated)
sci.bio.evolution Discussions of evolutionary biology. (Moderated)
sci.bio.phytopathology All aspects of plant diseases and pests. (Moderated)
sci.chem.organic.synthesis Synthetic organic chemistry related topics.
(Moderated)
soc.politics Political problems, systems, solutions. (Moderated)
soc.politics.marxism Karl Marx and his legacy in theory and practice.
(Moderated)

In particular, note that news:soc.politics has been active
recently, e. g., news:VI-***@giganews.com
(also via a forged Approved: header), even if the value of such
activity is debatable.

[Tristan Miller]

Dear Ivan,

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Having little prior interest in moderated newsgroups, I'm not
familiar with the moderation process, or at least its technical
details; however, I have for a long time had interest in netnews
and Internet standards in general, so I'd be willing to give it
a try, including entirely by myself. However, my preference
would be to be a part of a team instead, as I don't feel ready
to invest effort in the process on a daily basis.
I'd be interested in (co)moderating the following groups.

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
comp.newprod Announcements of new products of interest.
(Moderated)
comp.std.announce Announcements about standards activities.
(Moderated)
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature Guitar tablature and performance.
(Moderated)
rec.photo.moderated The art and science of photography. (Moderated)

Moderation is most conveniently done with a dedicated software package,
and we'd be happy to advise you on the options and with getting one of
them set up on your infrastructure. This initial setup will probably be
most of the effort; after that it's just a matter of approving or
rejecting posts, in accordance with the group's charter and moderation
policy, as they come in. As the groups have been disused for some time
now there may not be many submissions unless or until some effort is
made to revive the community. We could start this off by posting an
announcement of the new moderator here and in other relevant groups,
though arranging for some additional targeted announcements would be
helpful.

In any case, it's always a good idea to have multiple moderators. Would
you be willing to post calls for volunteers in the groups related to the
ones you are interested in moderating? I could suggest at least the
following:

comp.newprod -> comp.misc

comp.std.announce -> comp.misc, comp.std.misc

rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature -> rec.music.makers.guitar, rec.music

rec.photo.moderated -> rec.photo.misc

We could do this on your behalf, though it would probably look better
coming from you as the actual volunteer; this might also give you the
opportunity to gauge whether there's actually any interest in reviving
the groups.

Regards,
Tristan

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

Post by Usenet Big-8 Management Board
Also on news.groups, Steve Bonine warned that when groups are removed,
the history associated with the contents of the group will disappear,
which could hinder people doing (historical) research.  He agreed that
removing the unused groups in the RFD would prevent users from wasting
their time posting into the void, but said that at this time it's not
worth the effort to delete them.  Winston shared Steve Bonine's
concern about the contents of deleted groups disappearing.  Computer
Nerd Kev said that converting the groups to unmoderated ones may work
around this problem.

Further to the above, we've started a thread in news.admin.misc to ask
server operators about their policies and practices concerning rmgroup
control messages and retention of articles in deleted groups:
<news:vs7o7t$rie$***@reader1.panix.com> We'd love to hear from further
admins.

Regards,
Tristan