Bill Frantz writes:

It seems to me that a moderated news group or mailing list would be easy. You don't expect explicit sex descriptions to show up in the comp. hieararcy.

So what's the current moderated/unmoderated newsgroup ratio? (And what's the ratio weighted by newsgroup traffic or popularity?)

An unmoderated group or list carries a higher risk of seeing inappropriate material. However even unmoderated lists have standards and those people who enforce those standards.

Enforce? Enforce? Exsqueeze me?

This kind of enforcement is an example of communitarian as opposed to authoritarian control. It all depends on just how vital it is to the consumer (and rating group) that NO inappropriate material appear.

And of course, it doesn't work. There's an unlimited amount of mindless dreck floating around every unmoderated nesgroup; I've been reading news long enough (and NN makes it easy enough) that I avoid it without a second thought. I assure you, however, that no attempts at "nettiquette enforcement" are effective in a general sense.

Crypto relevence: Public key systems or digital signitures can help ensure that the material actually comes from it reputed source (e.g. the modarator).

How many people are there willing to moderate newsgroups? How many people are willing to set up alternatives to moderated newsgroups once the moderator becomes unpopular (see the history of the .telecom groups for an illustration)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m5@tivoli.com) | | stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~