beware using Google to post when there is cross-posting to a moderated newsgroup.

note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec52e28b/b6376972d0ba02e5?hl=en#b6376972d0ba02e5

evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
delete the moderated NGs from it.

another thing i wish Google would do is allow for a signature on the
bottom of our posts without us explicity putting it in.

--

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

robert bristow-johnson said the following on 23/06/2007 19:38:
> note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec52e28b/b6376972d0ba02e5?hl=en#b6376972d0ba02e5
> 
> evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
> newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
> moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
> delete the moderated NGs from it.

It's not just Google Groups.  I posted a reply to that thread via my 
ISP's SMTP at the same time; it still hasn't appeared!


-- 
Oli

On Jun 23, 2:41 pm, Oli Charlesworth <c...@olifilth.co.uk> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson said the following on 23/06/2007 19:38:
>
> > note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec5...
>
> > evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
> > newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
> > moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
> > delete the moderated NGs from it.
>
> It's not just Google Groups.  I posted a reply to that thread via my
> ISP's SMTP at the same time; it still hasn't appeared!

i think it just did appear.  at least there are two "new" posts from
me, one from you, and one from Randy.

r b-j

robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> writes:

> note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec52e28b/b6376972d0ba02e5?hl=en#b6376972d0ba02e5
>
> evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
> newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
> moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
> delete the moderated NGs from it.
>
> another thing i wish Google would do is allow for a signature on the
> bottom of our posts without us explicity putting it in.

I'd ask for your money back, Robert. :)

Seriously, I pay a whopping $4/month for non-binary usenet access
via supernews. That's actually high - some usenet service providers
charge by the amount of data downloaded and textual groups result in
very low monthly costs.

Then you can use your news client of choice. 

NB: I *shouldn't* have to pay at all for usenet news access, but since
Earthlink's usenet news service is so unreliable I am forced to. 
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %       'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882                %                   the coin will fall."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           %  'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:

> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec52e28b/b6376972d0ba02e5?hl=en#b6376972d0ba02e5

> evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
> newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
> moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
> delete the moderated NGs from it.

As I understand it, that is part of the posting process.
It doesn't depend on where the post is from, only where it is going.

-- glen

On Jun 24, 7:53 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > note the enormously late posts to this gcc compiler warning thread:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/browse_frm/thread/6dc2b8dcec5...
> > evidently, Google Groups will not post it to the unmoderated
> > newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
> > moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
> > delete the moderated NGs from it.
>
> As I understand it, that is part of the posting process.
> It doesn't depend on where the post is from, only where it is going.

but i don't understand why, when multiple NGs are listed in the
Newsgroups: header, why posting to the unmoderated groups should be
gated by the necessary approval of the moderator(s) of the moderated
groups listed on the same line.  can't they write the newsserver
software to promulgate the post to the unmoderated NGs and do whatever
it has to do to send it to the moderator for approval for the
moderated NGs.

the moral of the story is: don't crosspost to moderated NGs.  send the
post separately.

r b-j

robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> On Jun 24, 7:53 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>robert bristow-johnson wrote:

(snip)
>>>newsgroups until it gets approval from the moderator of the sole
>>>moderated group.  we might have to examine the newsgroups line and
>>>delete the moderated NGs from it.

>>As I understand it, that is part of the posting process.
>>It doesn't depend on where the post is from, only where it is going.

> but i don't understand why, when multiple NGs are listed in the
> Newsgroups: header, why posting to the unmoderated groups should be
> gated by the necessary approval of the moderator(s) of the moderated
> groups listed on the same line.  can't they write the newsserver
> software to promulgate the post to the unmoderated NGs and do whatever
> it has to do to send it to the moderator for approval for the
> moderated NGs.

I never tried to understand the details of posting.  The comp.compilers
newsgroup is moderated, but usually posts go through in less than a day,
sometimes a little longer.  I presume it was intentional that posting
be done this way.

-- glen

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> but i don't understand why, when multiple NGs are listed in the
> Newsgroups: header, why posting to the unmoderated groups should be
> gated by the necessary approval of the moderator(s) of the moderated
> groups listed on the same line.  can't they write the newsserver
> software to promulgate the post to the unmoderated NGs and do whatever
> it has to do to send it to the moderator for approval for the
> moderated NGs.

Each posting says in its Newsgroups line in what groups it wants to be.
If you have a posting with four groups there, but it is stored only in
three on the server, that simply is an inconsistent state. There is no
header saying which groups still need approval. Unlike a posting to a
mailing list, the news posting is *not* copied and duplicated into every
group, there is just the one instance of it, and that cannot be half-posted.

> the moral of the story is: don't crosspost to moderated NGs.  send the
> post separately.

No. The moral is: don't crosspost. At least if not *absolutely*
necessary. Multi-posting is rude. Sure, *you* get to see your post
earlier. But in return, everyone else has to read it multiple times, and
you'll split discussion unnecessarily.


  Stefan

On Jun 25, 4:05 pm, Stefan Reuther <stefan.n...@arcor.de> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > but i don't understand why, when multiple NGs are listed in the
> > Newsgroups: header, why posting to the unmoderated groups should be
> > gated by the necessary approval of the moderator(s) of the moderated
> > groups listed on the same line.  can't they write the newsserver
> > software to promulgate the post to the unmoderated NGs and do whatever
> > it has to do to send it to the moderator for approval for the
> > moderated NGs.
>
> Each posting says in its Newsgroups line in what groups it wants to be.
> If you have a posting with four groups there, but it is stored only in
> three on the server, that simply is an inconsistent state. There is no
> header saying which groups still need approval. Unlike a posting to a
> mailing list, the news posting is *not* copied and duplicated into every
> group, there is just the one instance of it, and that cannot be half-posted.

i think i understand this.

> > the moral of the story is: don't crosspost to moderated NGs.  send the
> > post separately.
>
> No. The moral is: don't crosspost. At least if not *absolutely*
> necessary. Multi-posting is rude. Sure, *you* get to see your post
> earlier. But in return, everyone else has to read it multiple times, and
> you'll split discussion unnecessarily.

well, i can't agree with you here.  even though there are abuses (the
epitome is a spamming utility called "masspost" that will post to
whatever and as many NGs as you want) and inappropriate cross-posting,
i think that cross-posting to meaningfully related newsgroups makes
sense.  a lot of  stuff we do here at comp.dsp can be meaningfully
crossposted to groups like comp.speech.*, comp.realtime,
comp.sys.embedded (or something like that), comp.soft-sys.mathlab, or
even sci.math.* .  it's not rude per se (but it can become so), it
simply widens the circle of discussion.

i probably should have posted it at only comp.lang.c until someone
pointed me to the gnu.gcc.* hierarchy.  but the S/N here at comp.dsp
so sooo high, that i thought it would make for both something
interesting for DSPers to think about and one of these DSPers might
have the answer i need.

L8r,

r b-j



r b-j

robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On Jun 25, 4:05 pm, Stefan Reuther <stefan.n...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>the moral of the story is: don't crosspost to moderated NGs.  send the
>>>post separately.
>>
>>No. The moral is: don't crosspost. At least if not *absolutely*
>>necessary. Multi-posting is rude. Sure, *you* get to see your post
>>earlier. But in return, everyone else has to read it multiple times, and
>>you'll split discussion unnecessarily.
> 
> well, i can't agree with you here.  even though there are abuses (the
> epitome is a spamming utility called "masspost" that will post to
> whatever and as many NGs as you want) and inappropriate cross-posting,
> i think that cross-posting to meaningfully related newsgroups makes
> sense.

Admittedly, "don't crosspost" is probably a bit too restrictive, but the
majority of crosspost/multiposts I see is unnecessary. YMMV. But even
then, crossposting is MUCH better than multi-posting, even if it's
problematic with moderated newsgroups.


  Stefan