Nan:2011-04-03-result-news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
From Usenet Big-8 Management Board
From: board@big-8.org (Big 8 Management Board)
Subject: RESULT: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting will be removed
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:14:43 EDT
Message-ID: <in9upa$fu8$1@news.albasani.net>
RESULT
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting be removed
The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2011-03-27 initiated a five-day
period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8
Management Board has decided by consensus to remove moderated group
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
RATIONALE:
Interest in the group has declined to the point where it is felt
by the moderation team the newsgroup no longer serves a purpose.
The first RFD was posted February 26, 2011, and there have been no
comments in support of retaining the group.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Discussion of ip-based blocklisting. (Moderated)
DISTRIBUTION:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
news.admin.net-abuse.email
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
CHARTER:
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is a newsgroup devoted to
discussion of subjects related to the use, administration, and
effects of blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited
bulk email and other unwanted or abusive network traffic. Any
topic which is especially of interest to those maintaining,
using, or affected by blocklists is welcome in this group.
The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and
frustration are expected, but vulgarity, ad hominem attacks,
unwarranted generalisations and non-productive displays of pique
(however elegantly worded,) will be rejected at the discretion
of the moderators. Rejected articles will be returned to the
author. Where practicable, the moderator may include advice
on how to revise the article to better meet the criteria for
acceptance.
In general, the moderators will not reject articles based on
content, but only on tone and language. However, some content may
be deemed unsuitable. Examples of content-related criteria for
rejection may include ad hominem attacks, repetitive expositions
of largely identical arguments, and non- informative expressions
of opinion on the viability of one or another list, method,
provider, or listed entity. The focus will be on information.
Although discussions in the group may focus on one or another
listing in a specific blocklist, the advice and opinions
expressed in the group should not be taken as authoritative for
any listing or list. Maintainers of various lists use their own
various criteria, and may or may not be influenced by postings
in the group, however well-informed or accurate.
All messages removed by unauthorized cancels will be
automatically reposted by Dave the Resurrector or a similar
program, or at the discretion of a group moderator. Spams,
gateway spews, and other attacks on the system itself will be
removed as appropriate, following standard Usenet guidelines.
Binary files will not be approved for posting in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
The following are sample topics which will be addressed in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting:
Blocklist creation and maintenance Nomination and delisting
procedures Criteria used in listings Pros and cons of
DNSBL usage Reduction of "false positives" Discussions of
blocklist listings Effects of blocklist use on spam volume
Other technologies for propagation and querying of a list
New uses for blocklists
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is
not allowed; exceptions may be made at the discretion of the
moderators, as for example in the case of FAQ's.
Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet
Moderation Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will
be supplied by Scott Hazen Mueller. Where practicable, the
following procedures will be followed by the moderation team:
- The moderators will maintain the tone of discourse so
as to minimize the heated discussions to which the subject
often leads.
- Although moderators themselves may have strong opinions
on the efficacy, application, or side-effects of one
or another blocklist or other method of reducing spam,
they are expected to refrain from allowing such opinions
to influence their approval or rejection of articles.
- The moderators may use the tools provided (now or in
the future) to aid in moderation of the group. These
may include "white lists," "black lists," keywording of
headers, and word-filtering.
- Moderators will be added to or removed from the team by
a 2/3 majority vote. In the case of a vote for removal,
the moderator under review will not be permitted to vote.
HISTORY OF THE GROUP:
The moderated news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting (hereinafter
referred-to as "NANABl) was approved for creation by the Usenet
community in mid-2003, by a vote of 200:14.
For the next five years or so it filled its intended role quite
well, and was fairly active.
Starting sometime in early 2008, however, participation in
the discussion of blocklisting issues began to decline--being
replaced with nothing more than complaints and delisting requests
for two or three particular blocklists that (purposefully, one
presumes) do not provide for a method to contact them directly.
Repeated moderation team attempts to re-focus the newsgroup on
*discussion*, rather than serving as a mere complaint department
and delisting queue for certain blocklists, were, ultimately,
unsuccessful. After the moderation team eventually put their
collective foot down in early 2010 and refused to approve any
further blocklist complaints, delisting requests or repetitive
discussion (particularly as those related to the operation
and methodology of one particular blocklist), the newsgroup's
traffic dropped to nearly nothing.
The moderation team voted unanimously to shut the group down in
May of 2010.
Other than just recently, when one (1) submission was approved by
a moderator, the last approved submissions (3) to the newsgroup
were in May, 2010.
A February 24, 2011 announcement of the impending shutdown of
the group to NANABl, itself, and news.admin.net-abuse.email
garnered very little response, which tends to confirm there is
no significant remaining interest in the group.
PROPONENT: Jim Seymour <jseymour+usenet@LinxNet.com>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2011-02-26 - 1st RFD
2011-03-28 - LCC
2011-04-03 - RESULT
