• Re: MODERATOR (NOT MODERATORS?) FOUND for rec.photo.moderated, comp.std

    From Rayner Lucas@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 15 13:06:02 2025
    XPost: news.groups

    In article <684e1bb7@news.ausics.net>, not@telling.you.invalid says...

    In news.groups.proposals Rayner Lucas <usenet202101@magic-cookie.co.uknospamplease> wrote:
    As a contribution towards the latter, I have ported PyModerator to
    Python 3 (https://github.com/PyModerator/PyModerator). It's still
    rather elderly and clunky, with much work to be done, but is
    considerably easier to set up than the other extant moderation
    software, STUMP. The development version now has support for secure
    POP and SMTP connections, making it more likely to work with modern
    email providers.

    The only other way I can think of to lower the barrier to entry is
    some sort of hosted moderation platform, but that would be a single
    point of failure just like Robomod was.

    If I understand correctly, the moderation software just needs to
    read mail from the newsgroup's submission email inbox and post
    approved messages to a willing NNTP server. In that case you could
    easily have instances of the same moderation platform running in
    different places, similar to front-end websites like Invidious. If
    one dies, moderators could make an account on another identical
    instance and keep going. If it's open-source and well written in a
    long-term stable language (I wouldn't choose Python on that basis)
    then it shouldn't need much maintenance even if the original author
    departs.

    Ah yes, Python. "Let's remove nntplib from the standard library, nobody
    uses that any more". *sigh*

    I like the idea of an open-source moderation platform. We have
    STUMP/WebSTUMP, but it's a pain to set up.

    We'd still need volunteers to run instances of the platform, but maybe
    that way we'd only need a handful of technically competent people to
    provide moderation services to people who are willing to do moderation
    work but don't have the skills to set up their own platform.

    As, I gather, a closed-source service, Robomod effectively opted in
    to being a single point of failure, but I think that approach could
    be done much more flexibly.

    The only issue, and I'm not sure if it's an issue, might be the
    NNTP servers willing to accept postings from these distributed
    neo-Robomod instances. I got the impression from past discussion
    that some (most?) NNTP servers don't accept moderators posting
    approved articles through them, or require personal requests to
    allow it. If all the instances are pointing to the same willing
    NNTP server then it becomes another single point of failure.
    Ideally they'd all be pointing to different NNTP servers (_ideally_
    many instances would be run by the same people who run those NNTP
    servers).

    Panix and Eternal September are willing to allow posting of approved
    articles, if the user can show they have a legit reason. If anyone knows
    of other NNTP providers that will grant this permission, please let us
    know, it's good to have more options we can recommend to potential
    moderators.

    Rayner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)