I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one-speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the
provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel that
they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the case
of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that the moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one-
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speedonline-safety-act-explainer
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as
this one: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the
provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the
"provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the
Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers are
available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel that
they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the
case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that the
moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet News.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one- >speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as
this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/ >online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the
provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the
"provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the
Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers are
available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel that
they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the
case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that the
moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and
X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
What will the UK be doing about servers hosted outside it's jurisdiction
and accessed by VPN ?
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere, of the possible
effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet News. I see that some small online
forums are already closing down as they don't think they can comply with the Act, see
for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one-speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed forum. I expect
others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the provisions of the
Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this case. I get my
news feed from the servers of the Technical University of Berlin (although other fine
Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel
that they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the case of a
moderated group like this one, I also hope that the moderators don't feel that it
affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and X/Twitter, but
seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have adverse side-effects perhaps
quite widely. It may be that eventually case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there may be damage in the mean time.
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere, of the possible
effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet News. I see that some small online
forums are already closing down as they don't think they can comply with the Act, see
for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one-speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed forum. I expect
others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the provisions of the
Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this case. I get my
news feed from the servers of the Technical University of Berlin (although other fine
Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel
that they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the case of a
moderated group like this one, I also hope that the moderators don't feel that it
affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and X/Twitter, but
seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have adverse side-effects perhaps
quite widely. It may be that eventually case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there may be damage in the mean time.
But is there anything in this legislation which is any more onerous that
are say the existing legal provisions on say, defamation ? I've often read >local forums where statements are made which are clearly defamatory, both of >public figures, local politicians, and other contributors.
This has never seemed to bother the people who host around ten such forums, >around three of which are very active. In one instance in response to a >specific complaint and threat of legal action, an apology was made to a >fellow poster. But other than that, these forums appear to be totally >unmoderated; except possibly for key word filters which block posts >containing instances of profanity swearing etc.
So that would the consequences of breaking any of these Offcom codes be any more
damaging than would the possible consequences publishing defamatory material >as at present? Should it come to anyone's notice in the first place, that is.
But it may take a while before we have any clarity about where those
lines in the sand will be drawn.
All such legislation is only affective as are *the resources* and the >determination of those tasked with actually enforcing it. Which in this case >would appear to be Offcom. Mainly responding to complaints (?)
Assuming that is that is that it isn't part of the legislation that the industry
itself is being required to fund the extra expenditure involved.
Mark Goodge wrote:
But it may take a while before we have any clarity about where those
lines in the sand will be drawn.
There's nothing like a vague and arbitrarily enforced law to put the fear
of god into innocent people.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:17:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:one-
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed
anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-
explainer/speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as
this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-
online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the
provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the
"provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the
Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers
are available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't
feel that they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the
act. In the case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope
that the moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and
X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but
there may be damage in the mean time.
What will the UK be doing about servers hosted outside it's jurisdiction >>and accessed by VPN ?
Some countries have banned the use of VPNs and others only permit the
use of government-approved ones.
https://nordvpn.com/blog/are-vpns-legal/
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:17:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and
X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
What will the UK be doing about servers hosted outside it's jurisdiction
and accessed by VPN ?
Some countries have banned the use of VPNs and others only permit the
use of government-approved ones.
On 14/01/2025 15:37, Nick Odell wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:17:03 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and
X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually >>>> case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there >>>> may be damage in the mean time.
What will the UK be doing about servers hosted outside it's jurisdiction >>> and accessed by VPN ?
Some countries have banned the use of VPNs and others only permit the
use of government-approved ones.
Facebook banned. X banned. Twitter banned.
Everyone will have to migrate to the "dark web" to do anything.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as this >one: >https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the provisions
of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this >case. I get my news feed from the servers of the Technical University of Berlin
(although other fine Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very much
hope that they don't feel that they are a provider of news in the sense covered
by the act. In the case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that >the moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
I'm pretty sure that Usenet would be in scope. It is, after all, the
original U2U service that all the others have copied ideas from. But,
for a text-only service, the risk profile is going to be very low -
you're not going to get porn here, for example.
[On a technical note, there's something seriously wrong with your Usenet client - it's not wrapping text correctly. I see from the headers that
you're using Thunderbird, which normally gets it right, so you might want to investigate some of your settings]
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
[On a technical note, there's something seriously wrong with your Usenet client - it's not wrapping text correctly. I see from the headers that
you're using Thunderbird, which normally gets it right, so you might want to investigate some of your settings]
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as this >> one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the provisions
of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this
case. I get my news feed from the servers of the Technical University of
Berlin
(although other fine Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very >> much
hope that they don't feel that they are a provider of news in the sense covered
by the act. In the case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that
the moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
I'm pretty sure that Usenet would be in scope. It is, after all, the
original U2U service that all the others have copied ideas from. But, for a text-only service, the risk profile is going to be very low - you're not going to get porn here, for example.
So, for most providers, compliance is likely to be little more than a tick box exercise - you merely need to have a risk assessment which shows that
the risk is very low for all the priority categories of content. Usenet server operators are already legally responsible for material on their servers - Godfrey v Demon established that some time ago - and the new law doesn't change that. Usenet also doesn't have any privacy issues which
affect the likes of Microcosm, for example. Everything posted here is
already public, there are no private messages and no end-to-end encryption. The risks here are, genuinely, low or negligible for almost all the priority categories, and can easily be shown to be low or negligable.
Ofcom's guidance does, on the face of it, create a lot of bureaucracy for service providers. You have to read, and understand, the guidance, most of which will not apply to you but nonetheless needs to be fully comprehended
in order to know what does or does not apply. You have to create, and maintain, a risk assessment covering at least 17 different categories of content. You have to have a documented process for allowing users to report unlawful content. You have to have a documented process for dealing with reports of unlawful content. And you have to keep all of this documentation up to date, which means reviewing it regularly.
At least initially, putting this documentation together will be burdonsome (although once done, annual reviews should be relatively trivial unless the service itself has changed significantly). And this is the kind of work that most people whose job is primarily technical (eg, system administration)
will be unfamiliar with. So it will be a challenge. But it's not an insuperable one.
More generally, the prospect of Ofcom pursuing enforcement against Usenet
and other small, low-risk operators is, I think, close to negligible in itself. They simply don't have the resources to chase down every small provider of UGC unless there is evidence that the service is actually being used to distribute unlawful material. Which, for the vast majority of them, won't be the case.
Mark
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:33:41 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Usenet would be in scope. It is, after all, the
original U2U service that all the others have copied ideas from. But,
for a text-only service, the risk profile is going to be very low -
you're not going to get porn here, for example.
binary newsgroups ?
And secondly while I am using a text only server, less than 1% of Usenet traffic is text, most of it being various media, much of which is said
to be in breach of copyright if nothing else.
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so >it does not set a precedent.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >asked to.
And secondly while I am using a text only server, less than 1% of Usenet >traffic is text, most of it being various media, much of which is said to be >in breach of copyright if nothing else.
Mark Goodge wrote:
[On a technical note, there's something seriously wrong with your Usenet
client - it's not wrapping text correctly. I see from the headers that
you're using Thunderbird, which normally gets it right, so you might want to >> investigate some of your settings]
Thunderbird does get a few things wrong ...
I think it uses lone LFs for line endings instead of CRLF.
It can get fooled into changing multiple spaces into NBSP, maybe lhis
line will trigger it .
It very easily flips into base64 encoding whenever it
sees non-ASCII
But as far as header fields go, Clive's seem the same as mine, but his
TB isn't breaking long lines at all?
On 17 Jan 2025 19:29:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >> asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't liable, they would have. But they didn't.
And secondly while I am using a text only server, less than 1% of Usenet
traffic is text, most of it being various media, much of which is said to be >> in breach of copyright if nothing else.
None of the free, or cheap, Usenet providers carry binaries these days. Even prior to the Online Safety Act, the propensity of rightsholders to take action against those who facilitate infringement has made it impractical for all but the most well-funded commercial providers. Who will be equally well positioned to ensure compliance with the Act.
Mark
The headers say that it's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed. But there aren't any soft line breaks in there, only hard breaks. And the hard breaks only appear at the end of paragraphs. So no, it isn't breaking lines at all, even where it should be.
On 17 Jan 2025 19:29:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >asked to.
On 17 Jan 2025 at 20:24:08 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Jan 2025 19:29:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >> felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. >> Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would >> have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >>> asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled
first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't
liable, they would have. But they didn't.
Indeed, but there was a lot of speculation, perhaps based on wishful thinking >or American law, that had Demon taken the offending post down at Mr Godfrey's >request they might have had a defence. Indeed, a test case on those lines >would have been interesting.
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. >Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would >have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >>asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled >first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't >liable, they would have. But they didn't.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:24:08 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
On 17 Jan 2025 19:29:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >> felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. >> Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would >> have appealed.
I suspect Godfrey v Demon was overtaken shortly afterwards by Regulation
19 (Hosting) of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 (implementing
the InfoSoc Directive). >https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2013/regulation/19
There might perhaps be an issue as to who is the "recipient" of a
distributed Usenet hosting service: the poster, the viewer, or both? (I >suspect both.)
In message <ineloj1hb3sbu3p33qgecu97qjo78t57av@4ax.com>, at 20:24:08 on
Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >> felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey. >> Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would >> have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when >>> asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled
first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't
liable, they would have. But they didn't.
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it
was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then
the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
Mark Goodge wrote:
The headers say that it's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed. But there aren't any soft line breaks in there, only hard
breaks. And the hard breaks only appear at the end of paragraphs. So
no, it
isn't breaking lines at all, even where it should be.
@Clive
one setting I've changed from default
mail.strictly_mime_headers=false
defaults I've left alone
plain_text.wrap_long_lines=true
mailnews.wraplength=72
On 18/01/2025 10:59, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
The headers say that it's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed. But there aren't any soft line breaks in there, only hard >>> breaks. And the hard breaks only appear at the end of paragraphs. So
no, it
isn't breaking lines at all, even where it should be.
@Clive
one setting I've changed from default
mail.strictly_mime_headers=false
defaults I've left alone
plain_text.wrap_long_lines=true
mailnews.wraplength=72
Thanks to both of you. My setting had mailnews.wraplength=0 and I've
now changed it to 72.
There might perhaps be an issue as to who is the "recipient" of a >distributed Usenet hosting service: the poster, the viewer, or both? (I >suspect both.)
That regulation starts off by referring to "the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service", which would imply that the
recipient of the service is the poster, not the viewer. Of course, there can be multiple services involved in hosting UGC, but the one that's relevant here is the service provided to the supplier of information which may later be determined to be unlawful.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:22:00 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote...
[Electronic Commerce Regs / InfoSoc Directive]
Tim Jackson wrote...
There might perhaps be an issue as to who is the "recipient" of a
distributed Usenet hosting service: the poster, the viewer, or both? (I
suspect both.)
That regulation starts off by referring to "the storage of information
provided by a recipient of the service", which would imply that the
recipient of the service is the poster, not the viewer. Of course, there can >> be multiple services involved in hosting UGC, but the one that's relevant
here is the service provided to the supplier of information which may later >> be determined to be unlawful.
I could have worded my post more clearly.
Yes, I agree that for the purposes of Regulation 19 it has to be the
poster who receives the service. But as Usenet is a distributed
service, the viewer will usually be viewing a copy stored on a
downstream server, not the one it was originally posted on.
Clearly the viewer is receiving a service from the downstream service >provider.
However, in my opinion, the *poster* is also indirectly receiving a
service from that downstream service provider. Which then benefits from
the safety provided by Reg 19 as long as it takes the post down when >notified.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 17:19:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ineloj1hb3sbu3p33qgecu97qjo78t57av@4ax.com>, at 20:24:08 on
Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember >>>>appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >>> felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey.
Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would >>> have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when
asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled >>> first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't >>> liable, they would have. But they didn't.
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it
was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then
the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
The complained of post would still be defamatory under any imaginable version >of defamation law.
In message <3226041406.56d940ae@uninhabited.net>, at 20:31:00 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 17:19:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ineloj1hb3sbu3p33qgecu97qjo78t57av@4ax.com>, at 20:24:08 on
Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember
appealed, so
it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an appeal was >>>> felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better resourced than Mr Godfrey.
Had they felt they had a reasonable chance of winning at appeal, they would
have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon
carrying defamatory material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when
asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled >>>> first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't >>>> liable, they would have. But they didn't.
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it >>> was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then >>> the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
The complained of post would still be defamatory under any imaginable version
of defamation law.
Please show your working, because the law has changed.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 09:04:05 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
But it may take a while before we have any clarity about where those
lines in the sand will be drawn.
There's nothing like a vague and arbitrarily enforced law to put the fear
of god into innocent people.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:13:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3226041406.56d940ae@uninhabited.net>, at 20:31:00 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 17:19:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it >>>> was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then >>>> the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
The complained of post would still be defamatory under any imaginable version
of defamation law.
Please show your working, because the law has changed.
The post accused him of indulging in an activity which all normal people would >find morally reprehensible. It was indisputably defamatory. Defences are >possible to a defamation claim, but there is no doubt at all that the post >would be found defamatory as a first stage, before any defence was considered.
My feeling is that my site is very low risk. But the information I've read >so far about the OSA tells me I need to provide *evidence* under lots of >different categories to *prove* that absence of risk. I don't see how I can >do that. E.g. I would be amazed if any children took an interest in my site, >but I can't prove that this is impossible.
Now it may be that Ofcom will be far too busy with the "big fish" to ever >take the slightest notice of my little site.
But I'm anxious about the
possibility that they could, and have started thinking that the safest
course might be to just block access to users within the UK, though I would >certainly not like to do that.
On 20 Jan 2025 17:12:53 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:13:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3226041406.56d940ae@uninhabited.net>, at 20:31:00 on Sat, 18 >>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 17:19:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it >>>>> was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then >>>>> the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
The complained of post would still be defamatory under any imaginable version
of defamation law.
Please show your working, because the law has changed.
The post accused him of indulging in an activity which all normal people would
find morally reprehensible. It was indisputably defamatory. Defences are
possible to a defamation claim, but there is no doubt at all that the post >> would be found defamatory as a first stage, before any defence was considered.
It's arguable that a post on a fairly obscure Usenet group wouldn't now meet the "serious harm" requirement of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. I suppose a lot would depend on the probability of the claimant's personal or professional acquaintances reading the post.
Even had the Act been in force at the time, I think it would have been relatively easy to make that argument. In 1997, Usenet was by far the
largest online discussion system and it's extremely likely that Dr Godfrey's colleagues and professional acquaintances would have also been using it. So
a likelihood of serious harm would have been demonstrable, on the balance of probabilities. And that would be enough to make out the case for defamation; it would then be down to a defence if one (or more) was applicable.
Roland is right, therefore, that the 2013 Act has raised the bar for defamation, and it's probable, now, that most things on Usenet wouldn't meet it unless the claimant could show that there was still a likelihood of serious harm. And there might be, of course, in a group which still has substantial use by a particular demographic of which the claimant is a part. But the claimant would have to make that argument. It couldn't simply be assumed.
Mark
On 20 Jan 2025 at 14:13:30 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3226041406.56d940ae@uninhabited.net>, at 20:31:00 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 17:19:33 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ineloj1hb3sbu3p33qgecu97qjo78t57av@4ax.com>, at 20:24:08 on >>>> Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
A couple of points: Godfrey v. Demon was not so far as I remember >>>>>>appealed, so it does not set a precedent.
It wasn't appealed, no. But one of the main reasons was that an >>>>>appeal was felt to be unlikely to succeed. Demon were better >>>>>resourced than Mr Godfrey. Had they felt they had a reasonable >>>>>chance of winning at appeal, they would have appealed.
And what the case was based on was not Demon carrying defamatory >>>>>>material per se, but Demon failing to take it down when asked to.
For that even to be relevant, the question of liability had to be settled >>>>> first. If Demon could have defended the case by arguing that they weren't >>>>> liable, they would have. But they didn't.
What people need to understand is that Demon ran a Usenet server, and it >>>> was because of that they were pursued for alleged defamation. Since then >>>> the defamation law has changed quite a lot.
The complained of post would still be defamatory under any
imaginable version of defamation law.
Please show your working, because the law has changed.
The post accused him of indulging in an activity which all normal people would >find morally reprehensible. It was indisputably defamatory. Defences are >possible to a defamation claim, but there is no doubt at all that the post >would be found defamatory as a first stage, before any defence was considered.
Thanks for the feedback.
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.
To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into effect then.
See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the guidance,
but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced, and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get answers like "It depends on your circumstances", "We can't advise individual sites", "You have to
make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to respond to any reports that come in and judge whether that content is really illegal. You are required
to remove anything that *is* illegal under a long list of categories, but also to protect users' right to freedom of speech. It's easy to think of cases where this balance could be very tricky. I simply don't want to get into the business of having to police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But I'm
just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away on
holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no
definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11 responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1
2: An Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5
3: Oh No, that would be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to
5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other web interfaces to Usenet, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-based_sites_and_popularity Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a site
into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.
To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to my
Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to meet the
requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into effect then.
See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk >>
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the guidance,
but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced, and following
their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects remain vague, and
requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get answers like "It depends >> on your circumstances", "We can't advise individual sites", "You have to
make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just too >> much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and policy/system
changes. It's also that one is then required to respond to any reports that >> come in and judge whether that content is really illegal. You are required >> to remove anything that *is* illegal under a long list of categories, but
also to protect users' right to freedom of speech. It's easy to think of
cases where this balance could be very tricky. I simply don't want to get
into the business of having to police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But I'm
just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away on
holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no
definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a site
outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the newsgrouper >> site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11 responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1
2: An Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5
3: Oh No, that would be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed
understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to
5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other web
interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-based_sites_and_popularity
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a site
into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to be on the
safe side I have reregistered my site as https://newsgrouper.org - dropping >> the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to go
down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 18:52:43 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to
my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to
meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into
effect then. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the
guidance, but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced,
and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects
remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get
answers like "It depends on your circumstances", "We can't advise
individual sites", "You have to make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just
too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and
policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to respond
to any reports that come in and judge whether that content is really
illegal. You are required to remove anything that *is* illegal under a
long list of categories, but also to protect users' right to freedom
of speech. It's easy to think of cases where this balance could be
very tricky. I simply don't want to get into the business of having to
police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But
I'm just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away
on holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no
definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a
site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the
newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run
for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11
responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1 2: An
Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5 3: Oh No, that would
be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed
understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to
5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other
web interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web- based_sites_and_popularity
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a
site into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to
be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as
https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to go
down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
Until Ofcom mandates ISP man in the middle proxies with forged
credentials and packet inspection. You may consider this a prediction.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:44:06 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 18:52:43 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:based_sites_and_popularity
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to >>>> my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to
meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into
effect then. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the
guidance, but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced,
and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects
remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get
answers like "It depends on your circumstances", "We can't advise
individual sites", "You have to make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just >>>> too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and
policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to respond
to any reports that come in and judge whether that content is really
illegal. You are required to remove anything that *is* illegal under a >>>> long list of categories, but also to protect users' right to freedom
of speech. It's easy to think of cases where this balance could be
very tricky. I simply don't want to get into the business of having to >>>> police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But
I'm just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away >>>> on holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no
definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a
site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the
newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run
for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11
responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1 2: An
Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5 3: Oh No, that would >>>> be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed
understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to
5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other
web interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a
site into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to
be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as
https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to go
down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
Until Ofcom mandates ISP man in the middle proxies with forged
credentials and packet inspection. You may consider this a prediction.
Still wouldn't block VPNs
On 18 Feb 2025 at 21:20:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:44:06 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 18:52:43 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:based_sites_and_popularity
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to >>>>> my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to
meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into >>>>> effect then. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the
guidance, but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced, >>>>> and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects >>>>> remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get >>>>> answers like "It depends on your circumstances", "We can't advise
individual sites", "You have to make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just >>>>> too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and
policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to respond >>>>> to any reports that come in and judge whether that content is really >>>>> illegal. You are required to remove anything that *is* illegal under a >>>>> long list of categories, but also to protect users' right to freedom >>>>> of speech. It's easy to think of cases where this balance could be
very tricky. I simply don't want to get into the business of having to >>>>> police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But >>>>> I'm just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away >>>>> on holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no >>>>> definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a
site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the >>>>> newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run
for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11
responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1 2: An
Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5 3: Oh No, that would >>>>> be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed
understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to >>>>> 5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other >>>>> web interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a
site into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to >>>>> be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as
https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to go >>>> down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
Until Ofcom mandates ISP man in the middle proxies with forged
credentials and packet inspection. You may consider this a prediction.
Still wouldn't block VPNs
There is already talk of making them illegal. Couldn't the government just forbid them working in this country without giving the ISPs the necessary information?
On 18/02/2025 21:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 21:20:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:44:06 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 18:52:43 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:based_sites_and_popularity
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK access to >>>>>> my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it impractical to >>>>>> meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety Act, which comes into >>>>>> effect then. See https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the
guidance, but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has produced, >>>>>> and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very many aspects >>>>>> remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines get >>>>>> answers like "It depends on your circumstances", "We can't advise
individual sites", "You have to make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is just >>>>>> too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments and
policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to respond >>>>>> to any reports that come in and judge whether that content is really >>>>>> illegal. You are required to remove anything that *is* illegal under a >>>>>> long list of categories, but also to protect users' right to freedom >>>>>> of speech. It's easy to think of cases where this balance could be >>>>>> very tricky. I simply don't want to get into the business of having to >>>>>> police other people's speech.
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly". But >>>>>> I'm just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I was away >>>>>> on holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course there's no >>>>>> definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put a >>>>>> site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey on the >>>>>> newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I let it run >>>>>> for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11
responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1 2: An
Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5 3: Oh No, that would >>>>>> be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed
understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience to >>>>>> 5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the other >>>>>> web interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring a >>>>>> site into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that, but to >>>>>> be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as
https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to go >>>>> down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
Until Ofcom mandates ISP man in the middle proxies with forged
credentials and packet inspection. You may consider this a prediction.
Still wouldn't block VPNs
There is already talk of making them illegal. Couldn't the government just >> forbid them working in this country without giving the ISPs the necessary
information?
Given any company with remote workers or multiple premises will use VPN,
all I can say any statute will have so many loopholes and shortcomings I don't think that will be practical.
What happens where a company has US and UK premises and there is a
choice which location is used for internet access?
On 19 Feb 2025 at 13:37:50 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 21:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 21:20:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:44:06 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 18:52:43 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>based_sites_and_popularity
wrote:
On 18/02/2025 13:46, Colin Macleod wrote:
Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> posted:
Thanks for the feedback.To follow up on this, regretfully I have decided to block UK
access to my Newsgrouper site, starting 16th March. I find it
impractical to meet the requirements of the UK's Online Safety
Act, which comes into effect then. See
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety and
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk
I've done a fair bit more homework on this, reading some of the
guidance, but not all the thousands of pages that Ofcom has
produced, and following their online seminars. Unfortunately very >>>>>>> many aspects remain vague, and requests to Ofcom to provide
clearer guidelines get answers like "It depends on your
circumstances", "We can't advise individual sites", "You have to >>>>>>> make the judgement", etc..
I'm afraid my conclusion is that trying to comply with the OSA is >>>>>>> just too much effort. It's not just the initial risk assessments >>>>>>> and policy/system changes. It's also that one is then required to >>>>>>> respond to any reports that come in and judge whether that content >>>>>>> is really illegal. You are required to remove anything that *is* >>>>>>> illegal under a long list of categories, but also to protect
users' right to freedom of speech. It's easy to think of cases
where this balance could be very tricky. I simply don't want to
get into the business of having to police other people's speech. >>>>>>>
There is also a requirement to respond to complaints "swiftly".
But I'm just one individual. What if a complaint came in while I >>>>>>> was away on holiday and I didn't see it for a few days? Of course >>>>>>> there's no definition of "swiftly".
Ofcom have stated unequivocally that geo-blocking the UK will put >>>>>>> a site outside the scope of the Act. So I put up a simple survey >>>>>>> on the newsgrouper site, this appeared for UK users only, and I
let it run for two weeks.
There was just one question and a space for comments. I got 11
responses,
as follows:
How would a UK block affect you? Answers
1: Not Concerned, I can follow Usenet by other means. 1 2: An
Annoyance, but not the end of the world. 5 3: Oh No, that >>>>>>> would be a disaster! 5
The comments were generally disappointed, but some also expressed >>>>>>> understanding. So blocking UK access would be a real inconvenience >>>>>>> to 5 people. I regret that, but they may be able to use one of the >>>>>>> other web interfaces to Usenet, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-based_Usenet#Web-
Also UK people are only about 15% of my users now.
I have seen comments that having a .uk address is enough to bring >>>>>>> a site into the scope of the act. I'm not convinced about that,
but to be on the safe side I have reregistered my site as
https://newsgrouper.org - dropping the .uk component.
So more reason to install and use the Tor Browser. Shame we have to >>>>>> go down this route and yet so easy to overcome the GEO blocking
restrictions that OFCOM stipulate.
Until Ofcom mandates ISP man in the middle proxies with forged
credentials and packet inspection. You may consider this a
prediction.
Still wouldn't block VPNs
There is already talk of making them illegal. Couldn't the government
just forbid them working in this country without giving the ISPs the
necessary information?
Given any company with remote workers or multiple premises will use
VPN,
all I can say any statute will have so many loopholes and shortcomings
I don't think that will be practical.
What happens where a company has US and UK premises and there is a
choice which location is used for internet access?
So far they have got round this issue by making rules for the mass ISPs serving the hoi polloi, and exempting important people who arrange their
own Internet access. I rather suspect that is what the Chinese communist party do too.
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:08:49 GMT, Colin Macleod <user7@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller services? >>>I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Ofcom simply doesn't have the resources to care about smaller providers.
Mark
On 28 Feb 2025 at 21:47:36 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:08:49 GMT, Colin Macleod
<user7@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller
services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Ofcom simply doesn't have the resources to care about smaller
providers.
Mark
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case
you want help with them. It would be remarkably easy for the relevant security services to ask them to spot and report any words, phrases or
ideas that might be of interest. Except of course those of American
citizens. This rather bypasses most people's encryption. Apple is doing
the same, but claim you can switch their AI off.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:13:43 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 21:47:36 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:08:49 GMT, Colin Macleod
<user7@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27 >>>>> Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller
services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Ofcom simply doesn't have the resources to care about smaller
providers.
Mark
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers'
reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case
you want help with them. It would be remarkably easy for the relevant
security services to ask them to spot and report any words, phrases or
ideas that might be of interest. Except of course those of American
citizens. This rather bypasses most people's encryption. Apple is doing
the same, but claim you can switch their AI off.
As I have said repeatedly, I assume anything that ends up going over
wires is readable to someone.
On 01/03/2025 09:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 22:13:43 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:I presume you include fibre? The odd thing is that these days a
On 28 Feb 2025 at 21:47:36 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:08:49 GMT, Colin Macleod
<user7@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27 >>>>>> Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller
services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Ofcom simply doesn't have the resources to care about smaller
providers.
Mark
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers'
reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case
you want help with them. It would be remarkably easy for the relevant
security services to ask them to spot and report any words, phrases or
ideas that might be of interest. Except of course those of American
citizens. This rather bypasses most people's encryption. Apple is doing
the same, but claim you can switch their AI off.
As I have said repeatedly, I assume anything that ends up going over
wires is readable to someone.
conversation over the radio is less likely to be intercepted and logged
- even though world-wide.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> posted:
In message <m2bj2kFg7r6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 16:43:59 on Thu, 27
Feb 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Does that mean any lesser treatment by OFCOM for much smaller services?
I think I predicted that a couple of months ago.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' reading >all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case you want help >with them.
It would be remarkably easy for the relevant security services to
ask them to spot and report any words, phrases or ideas that might be of >interest.
In message <8082301086.e215100c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:13:43 on Fri, 28
Feb 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' >>reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case
you want help with them.
It's already happening. A friend reports that incoming Gmail which
includes allegedly "abusive" language is put into "Social", and hence
never hits their main inbox - causing confusion.
That should be
anti-social.
It would be remarkably easy for the relevant security services to ask
them to spot and report any words, phrases or ideas that might be of >>interest.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:03:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <8082301086.e215100c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:13:43 on Fri, 28
Feb 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' >>>reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case >>>you want help with them.
It's already happening. A friend reports that incoming Gmail which
includes allegedly "abusive" language is put into "Social", and hence
never hits their main inbox - causing confusion.
Does that affect POP3 mail collection, or only webmail?
In message <vqecso$3evl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:29 on Fri, 7 Mar 2025, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:03:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <8082301086.e215100c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:13:43 on Fri, 28 >>> Feb 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' >>>> reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case >>>> you want help with them.
It's already happening. A friend reports that incoming Gmail which
includes allegedly "abusive" language is put into "Social", and hence
never hits their main inbox - causing confusion.
Does that affect POP3 mail collection, or only webmail?
Only webmail, because POP3 collection doesn't have server-sorted mailboxes, that's something your client has to implement.
But the server has to tell the POP3 client about mail that it has put
in something other than their 'main inbox', and some servers don't. And
they may not have a long retention time for those unread messages.
Nick Finnigan wrote:
But the server has to tell the POP3 client about mail that it has put
in something other than their 'main inbox', and some servers don't. And
they may not have a long retention time for those unread messages.
POP servers *only* have an inbox.
If they run a webmail server they may filter spam and put it somewhere that only the webmail server sees, and never makes it to the POP server and therefore never makes it to the POP client.
On 11/03/2025 09:34, Andy Burns wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
But the server has to tell the POP3 client about mail that it has put >>> in something other than their 'main inbox', and some servers don't. And
they may not have a long retention time for those unread messages.
POP servers *only* have an inbox.
e.g. https://support.aa.net.uk/POP3_Tips
If they run a webmail server they may filter spam and put it somewhere that >> only the webmail server sees, and never makes it to the POP server and
therefore never makes it to the POP client.
As the article cited above says, the other folders are visible to clients that connect by IMAP.
On 11/03/2025 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vqecso$3evl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:29 on Fri, 7 Mar
2025, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:03:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <8082301086.e215100c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:13:43 on Fri, 28 >>>> Feb 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' >>>>> reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case >>>>> you want help with them.
It's already happening. A friend reports that incoming Gmail which
includes allegedly "abusive" language is put into "Social", and hence
never hits their main inbox - causing confusion.
Does that affect POP3 mail collection, or only webmail?
Only webmail, because POP3 collection doesn't have server-sorted >>mailboxes, that's something your client has to implement.
But the server has to tell the POP3 client about mail that it has put
in something other than their 'main inbox', and some servers don't. And
they may not have a long retention time for those unread messages.
In message <vqou5v$1sa2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:53 on Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 11/03/2025 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vqecso$3evl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:05:29 on Fri, 7 Mar
2025, Handsome Jack <jack@handsome.com> remarked:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:03:27 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <8082301086.e215100c@uninhabited.net>, at 22:13:43 on Fri, 28 >>>>> Feb 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Apparently Microsoft, and possibly Google, intend to have AI 'helpers' >>>>>> reading all your incoming and outgoing messages and other comms in case >>>>>> you want help with them.
It's already happening. A friend reports that incoming Gmail which
includes allegedly "abusive" language is put into "Social", and hence >>>>> never hits their main inbox - causing confusion.
Does that affect POP3 mail collection, or only webmail?
Only webmail, because POP3 collection doesn't have server-sorted
mailboxes, that's something your client has to implement.
But the server has to tell the POP3 client about mail that it has put in
something other than their 'main inbox', and some servers don't. And they
may not have a long retention time for those unread messages.
I have come across relatively few POP3 servers with 'subsidiary mailboxes' and none I'm aware of without an infinite retention time.
Do you think GMail-POP3 is one I've missed?
(My oldest Gmail-Web is from 2008)
Owen Rees wrote:
As the article cited above says, the other folders are visible to clients
that connect by IMAP.
No argument there, but the sub-thread
<lun4kvFstn2U1@mid.individual.net>
is regarding POP clients, as I tried to make clear.
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one-speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as
this one: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the "provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers are available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel that
they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the
case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that the moderators don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
I have come across relatively few POP3 servers with 'subsidiary >>mailboxes' and none I'm aware of without an infinite retention time.
A&A and others refer to an 'email server' with folders, not a POP3 server.
They may see POP3 as a legacy interface on a mainly IMAP server.
I've just used webmail to check the 'spam folder' on one email server
I use (with POP), and the oldest message is 18-Feb-2025. I know there
were more when I last bothered to check.
Do you think GMail-POP3 is one I've missed?
(My oldest Gmail-Web is from 2008)
I've no idea what Gmail does,
but possibly Google see some value in retaining as much data about
people as possible.
The sub-thread started with a post about Google putting some messages
into "Social" - although exactly what that means was not clear. Since I
do not have a Gmail account
I cannot see for myself what it does.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 12:46:23 +0000, Clive Page wrote:
I am surprised not to have seen any discussion here, or indeed anywhere,
of the possible effects of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 on Usenet
News. I see that some small online forums are already closing down as
they don't think they can comply with the Act, see for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/note-to-no-10-one >>-speed-doesnt-fit-all-when-it-comes-to-online-safety
which describes the closure of the London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed
forum. I expect others will follow, which is a great shame.
I have not read the Act itself, just some official explainers such as
this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/ >>online-safety-act-explainer
From this it looks to me as if Usenet News would be subject to the
provisions of the Act but it is not at all clear who would termed the
"provider" in this case. I get my news feed from the servers of the
Technical University of Berlin (although other fine Usenet servers are
available, for the moment). I very much hope that they don't feel that
they are a provider of news in the sense covered by the act. In the
case of a moderated group like this one, I also hope that the moderators
don't feel that it affects them either.
The legislation was obviously aimed at the big boys like Facebook and
X/Twitter, but seems to have been drafted so widely that it will have
adverse side-effects perhaps quite widely. It may be that eventually
case law will show the limits of the applicability of the Act but there
may be damage in the mean time.
is this the act that stipulates that by july 2025 all porn providers
have to comply with govt directives on age verification or is that
separate?
Acc to BBC:
All websites on which pornographic material can be found, including
social media platforms, must introduce "robust" age-checking techniques
such as demanding photo ID or running credit card checks for UK users by >July.
Thats transferring a huge amount of sensitive personal details to orgs
not known for their integrity or security. As most of these are probably >outside the UK, how will the UK govt enforce this?
The sub-thread started with a post about Google putting some messages
into "Social" - although exactly what that means was not clear.
Since IGmail is "a bit odd", for a start, even as an IMAP server it doesn't
do not have a Gmail account I cannot see for myself what it does.
Google may be applying categorisation in its web UI so that although the messages are actually in the main inbox they are shown under different headings.
is this the act that stipulates that by july 2025 all porn providers
have to comply with govt directives on age verification or is that
separate?
Gmail is "a bit odd", for a start, even as an IMAP server it doesn't
really have folders, instead it has tags and a message can have multiple >tags, so a message can appear in several folders, I only use it for testing.
In message <gp61tjpc7mqcg16lfhkrlsffipho2011lf@4ax.com>, at 20:55:35 on
Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
The sub-thread started with a post about Google putting some messages
into "Social" - although exactly what that means was not clear. Since I
do not have a Gmail account
It would be well worth getting one, just for research purposes.
I cannot see for myself what it does.
Gmail-web defaults to having a number of pre-pack folders which they
call:
Inbox
Starred
Snoozed
Important
Snoozed
Sent
Drafts and
Categories...
The latter having subfolders of:
Social
Updates
Forums
Promotions
Then there's a "more", which includes:
Chats
Scheduled
All Mail
Spam
Trash
The system uses various filters and algorithms to place emails in one or
the other (and also many).
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:52:54 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Gmail is "a bit odd", for a start, even as an IMAP server it doesn't
really have folders, instead it has tags and a message can have multiple >>tags, so a message can appear in several folders, I only use it for >>testing.
Yes, that was part of Gmail's USP when first introduced - the idea that emails have tags, rather than folders, and a message can have multiple
tags (whereas it can only ever be in a single folder). On the webmail
view, you treat the tags in much the same way that you would treat
folders on a POP or IMAP client, but it's a more flexible way of
categorising emails.
However, Gmail also allows IMAP access to its system, and therefore
supports IMAP folders created by the client. That messes with the
tagging system a bit, because if you create a folder using an IMAP
client then it appears in the list on the webmail view as a tag, like
all the others, but if you create a tag via webmail it doesn't appear as
a folder in IMAP.
In message <vqpr2d$1sa2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:54 on Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
I have come across relatively few POP3 servers with 'subsidiary
mailboxes' and none I'm aware of without an infinite retention time.
A&A and others refer to an 'email server' with folders, not a POP3 server. >> They may see POP3 as a legacy interface on a mainly IMAP server.
I don't care what A&A see (and they are well know for being engagingly quirky), this is a discussion about POP3 in general.
I've just used webmail to check the 'spam folder' on one email server I
use (with POP), and the oldest message is 18-Feb-2025. I know there were
more when I last bothered to check.
Perhaps your client, or the server, is set up to delete all "read" emails after (say) 14 days.
wide availability of gigabyte HDDs.
Do you think GMail-POP3 is one I've missed?
(My oldest Gmail-Web is from 2008)
I've no idea what Gmail does,
I'd advise you also to get an account just for research purposes, it's impossible to be an "email expert" without.
but possibly Google see some value in retaining as much data about people
as possible.
You can always delete old messages if you aren't interested in keeping an archive. Personally I find it helpful to be able to search for things which arrived up to several years ago.
The one exception is "spam" where Google deletes them (read or unread)
after 30 days, which isn't necessarily very helpful if they ever mis-filter
a message into that folder.
On 12/03/2025 06:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vqpr2d$1sa2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:54 on Tue, 11 Mar 2025, >> Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
I have come across relatively few POP3 servers with 'subsidiary
mailboxes' and none I'm aware of without an infinite retention time.
A&A and others refer to an 'email server' with folders, not a POP3 server. >>> They may see POP3 as a legacy interface on a mainly IMAP server.
I don't care what A&A see (and they are well know for being engagingly
quirky), this is a discussion about POP3 in general.
I've just used webmail to check the 'spam folder' on one email server I
use (with POP), and the oldest message is 18-Feb-2025. I know there were >>> more when I last bothered to check.
Perhaps your client, or the server, is set up to delete all "read" emails
after (say) 14 days.
Nope; I did not read them.
Sounds to me like they didn't get the memo about the
wide availability of gigabyte HDDs.
Do you think GMail-POP3 is one I've missed?
(My oldest Gmail-Web is from 2008)
I've no idea what Gmail does,
I'd advise you also to get an account just for research purposes, it's
impossible to be an "email expert" without.
I have more Gmail accounts than I've had Android phones.
but possibly Google see some value in retaining as much data about people >>> as possible.
You can always delete old messages if you aren't interested in keeping an
archive. Personally I find it helpful to be able to search for things which >> arrived up to several years ago.
The one exception is "spam" where Google deletes them (read or unread)
after 30 days, which isn't necessarily very helpful if they ever mis-filter >> a message into that folder.
So you have come across a email server with a POP3 interface which does
not have an infinite retention time.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gp61tjpc7mqcg16lfhkrlsffipho2011lf@4ax.com>, at 20:55:35 on
Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
The sub-thread started with a post about Google putting some messages
into "Social" - although exactly what that means was not clear. Since I
do not have a Gmail account
It would be well worth getting one, just for research purposes.
I already have five personal email accounts including one that lets me use >any number of addresses. I do not need any more.
I cannot see for myself what it does.
Gmail-web defaults to having a number of pre-pack folders which they
call:
Inbox
Starred
Snoozed
Important
Snoozed
Sent
Drafts and
Categories...
The latter having subfolders of:
Social
Updates
Forums
Promotions
Then there's a "more", which includes:
Chats
Scheduled
All Mail
Spam
Trash
The system uses various filters and algorithms to place emails in one or
the other (and also many).
Just to be clear, do you mean that you see that structure if you access
Gmail with IMAP?
You can always delete old messages if you aren't interested in
keeping an archive. Personally I find it helpful to be able to search
for things which arrived up to several years ago.
The one exception is "spam" where Google deletes them (read or
unread) after 30 days, which isn't necessarily very helpful if they
ever mis-filter a message into that folder.
So you have come across a email server with a POP3 interface which
does not have an infinite retention time.
In message <vqrukt$2jted$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:28:13 on Wed, 12 Mar
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <gp61tjpc7mqcg16lfhkrlsffipho2011lf@4ax.com>, at 20:55:35 on
Tue, 11 Mar 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
The sub-thread started with a post about Google putting some messages
into "Social" - although exactly what that means was not clear. Since I >>>> do not have a Gmail account
It would be well worth getting one, just for research purposes.
I already have five personal email accounts including one that lets me use >>any number of addresses. I do not need any more.
But if apparently none are Gmail, that leaves an important gap in your >understanding of how Gmail works, and is different from others.
I cannot see for myself what it does.
Gmail-web defaults to having a number of pre-pack folders which they
call:
Inbox
Starred
Snoozed
Important
Snoozed
Sent
Drafts and
Categories...
The latter having subfolders of:
Social
Updates
Forums
Promotions
Then there's a "more", which includes:
Chats
Scheduled
All Mail
Spam
Trash
The system uses various filters and algorithms to place emails in one or >>> the other (and also many).
Just to be clear, do you mean that you see that structure if you access >>Gmail with IMAP?
It's what I see if I access Gmail using their standard webmail
application.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 54:22:50 |
| Calls: | 9,811 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,583 |