State of the cz, demon, ffm, han, medlux, relcom, z-netz hierarchies

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi all,

In case you have any information to share about the following
hierarchies, do not hesitate to tell.
I speak about them because control.ctl mentions a dead FTP link in
control.ctl.


I've seen that the UK ISP Demon Internet no longer exists in the form of
the demon.co.uk domain (closed in 2020). Should the demon.* hierarchy
still therefore be considered as managed?
Wouldn't it be unmanaged or defunct now?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=DEMON


Also, is ffm.* (Frankfurt/M) still active and managed?
The arcornews.de web site no longer exists.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=FFM


The or.kr web site mentioned for han.* also no longer exists...
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=HAN


Same thing for ftp.medlux.ru for medlux.*:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MEDLUX


And relcom.ru for relcom.*:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=RELCOM


As for cz.*, ftp.vslib.cz no longer exists; and the new tul.cz web site
does not return anything if I search "newsgroups":
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=CZ


I would suggest for all these sites to remove their FTP links (or update
them in case someone knows working links). And maybe make these
hierarchies (at least) unmanaged without PGP key.


As for z-netz.*, http://www.z-netz.de/ exists and mentions Dirk Meyer's
mail in dinoex.sub.org but the related FTP site no longer exists:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=Z-NETZ
(I've just sent him a mail. I'll report if I get an answer.)



P.-S.: Only ftp.isc.org and ftp.fu-berlin.de sites are still good (via
https). Not surprising, though, as they're known to be active :)

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Also, is ffm.* (Frankfurt/M) still active and managed?
The arcornews.de web site no longer exists.

The groups look mostly empty to me. I'll contact the last known maintainer
and report back.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As for z-netz.*, http://www.z-netz.de/ exists and mentions Dirk Meyer's
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=Z-NETZ

<ftp://ftp.dinoex.de/pub/keys/z-netz.koordination.user+sysops.asc> works
for me.

-thh

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Thomas,

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Also, is ffm.* (Frankfurt/M) still active and managed?
The arcornews.de web site no longer exists.

The groups look mostly empty to me. I'll contact the last known maintainer
and report back.

Thanks!

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As for z-netz.*, http://www.z-netz.de/ exists and mentions Dirk Meyer's
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=Z-NETZ

<ftp://ftp.dinoex.de/pub/keys/z-netz.koordination.user+sysops.asc> works
for me.

Oh yes, indeed. Just tested, it also works.
Dirk also answered me, and confirmed all the information about the
hierarchy are up-to-date. Good, then.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As for z-netz.*, http://www.z-netz.de/ exists and mentions Dirk Meyer's
    http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=Z-NETZ

<ftp://ftp.dinoex.de/pub/keys/z-netz.koordination.user+sysops.asc> works
for me.

Oh yes, indeed.  Just tested, it also works.

Looking at this again, the problem is that the key in PGPKEYS is not the
same as the one provided by the ftp URL.
Dirk confirmed me that the key available at the ftp URL is the expected
one to use.

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Also, is ffm.* (Frankfurt/M) still active and managed?
The arcornews.de web site no longer exists.

The groups look mostly empty to me. I'll contact the last known maintainer
and report back.

The maintainer doesn't do Usenet any more and has not been contacted by
anyone for years, so the hierarchy is no longer managed (and hasn't been
for quite some time [1]). To quote: "It's just wasting away."

Postings in my cycbuff for ffm.* and other local/regional hierarchies will
currently be retained for about two and a half years; according to
cnfsstat, the oldest article is from 09/2020.

In this time, I have
- ffm.admin: (empty)
- ffm.ausgehen: (empty)
- ffm.fundgrube: (empty)
- ffm.internet: (empty)
- ffm.jobs: (empty)
- ffm.kontakte: 1 article (from 2021-01-30)
- ffm.misc: (empty)
- ffm.talk: (empty)
- ffm.test: 7 articles (6 seem automated)
- ffm.weltuntergang: (empty)

In summary, ffm.* seems as dead as any still propagated hierarchy can be.

-thh

[1] According to the Google Groups archive, the last automated
informational post about ffm.* was seen in ffm.admin in 2005.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi all,
In case you have any information to share about the following
hierarchies, do not hesitate to tell.
I speak about them because control.ctl mentions a dead FTP link in
control.ctl.
I've seen that the UK ISP Demon Internet no longer exists in the form of
the demon.co.uk domain (closed in 2020). Should the demon.* hierarchy
still therefore be considered as managed?
Wouldn't it be unmanaged or defunct now?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=DEMON

Clearly it's not managed.

Nothing is ever "defunct" as long as a newsgroup with the same canonical
name is created on multiple News sites and it's still possible to
exchange articles among peers.

Categorize it as a "former institutional hierarchy", stating when the
institution closed. Lacking a hierarchy administrator, change
control.ctl to process no control messages at all.

Same comment for the others, except han.*.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Also, is ffm.* (Frankfurt/M) still active and managed?
The arcornews.de web site no longer exists.
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=FFM
The or.kr web site mentioned for han.* also no longer exists...
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=HAN

I don't recall what this one was about. This wasn't an institutional
hierarchy at all, was it. Wasn't han.* a language hierarchy?

Post by Julien ÉLIE
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MEDLUX
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=RELCOM
As for cz.*, ftp.vslib.cz no longer exists; and the new tul.cz web site
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=CZ
I would suggest for all these sites to remove their FTP links (or update
them in case someone knows working links). And maybe make these
hierarchies (at least) unmanaged without PGP key.

As I said before, change the entry so that no control messages are
automatically processed because these are former institutional
hierarchies no longer administered by their institutions, or the
institutions have gone out of businessness. I suggest that you do not
change them to unadministered.

If han.* is different than the others, then wait till someone declares
himself to be hierarchy administrator and if you feel he's legitimate,
work with him to implement a key. But in the meantime, do not process
any control messages automatically.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As for z-netz.*, http://www.z-netz.de/ exists and mentions Dirk Meyer's
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=Z-NETZ
(I've just sent him a mail. I'll report if I get an answer.)
P.-S.: Only ftp.isc.org and ftp.fu-berlin.de sites are still good (via
https). Not surprising, though, as they're known to be active :)

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Nothing is ever "defunct" as long as a newsgroup with the same canonical
name is created on multiple News sites and it's still possible to
exchange articles among peers.
Categorize it as a "former institutional hierarchy", stating when the
institution closed. Lacking a hierarchy administrator, change
control.ctl to process no control messages at all.

The current categories I see are:
- managed hierarchies with signed control articles which will be
automatically processed (like news.*);
- managed hierarchies without PGP but with a doit entry related to a
given mail (like bln.*);
- private (like bofh.*) or local (like nasa.*) hierarchies not intended
to be carried unless an agreement exists;
- reserved hierarchies (like local.*);
- historic hierarchies (like net.*);
- defunct hierarchies (like mod.*);
- unmanaged hierarchies (like can.*) without any control.ctl entry.


## * Some hierarchies are marked as *HISTORIC*. These hierarchies
## aren't entirely defunct, but they are very low-traffic, not widely
## read or carried, and may not be worth carrying. If you don't intend
## to carry them, comment out their entries.

microsoft.* may then belong to the historic category.
Or we would need another category like the one you suggested.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I would suggest for all these sites to remove their FTP links (or update
them in case someone knows working links). And maybe make these
hierarchies (at least) unmanaged without PGP key.

As I said before, change the entry so that no control messages are
automatically processed because these are former institutional
hierarchies no longer administered by their institutions, or the
institutions have gone out of businessness. I suggest that you do not
change them to unadministered.

They could be "managed hierarchies" with a doit entry corresponding to
the mail that once was used by the sender of control messages.
Though it would be better, to prevent forgeries, to have a drop action
by default instead of doit. (We already had a debate about it a few
years ago.)

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
- managed hierarchies with signed control articles which will be
automatically processed (like news.*);
- managed hierarchies without PGP but with a doit entry related to a given
mail (like bln.*);

I'm way behind on, well, everything, but my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release. I can leave the entries in commented out, so
people can always uncomment them again if they want to, but I don't think
I've seen any active issuance of unsigned control messages in a long time
and they're inherently a security risk.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
## * Some hierarchies are marked as *HISTORIC*. These hierarchies
## aren't entirely defunct, but they are very low-traffic, not widely
## read or carried, and may not be worth carrying. If you don't intend
## to carry them, comment out their entries.
microsoft.* may then belong to the historic category.

So far it's sounding like it's fitting the definition of historic. I
think the important part of historic is that no one is going to be
maintaining them, so they're sort of frozen in amber.

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Russ Allbery
I'm way behind on, well, everything, but my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release. I can leave the entries in commented out, so
people can always uncomment them again if they want to, but I don't think
I've seen any active issuance of unsigned control messages in a long time
and they're inherently a security risk.

Yes, +1.

[Heiko Schlichting]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Julien ÉLIE
- managed hierarchies with signed control articles which will be
automatically processed (like news.*);
- managed hierarchies without PGP but with a doit entry related to a given
mail (like bln.*);

I'm way behind on, well, everything, but my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release.

Then we should probably create and use a PGP key for bln.*. I'll put it on
our TODO list.

Heiko

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Heiko Schlichting

Post by Russ Allbery
I'm way behind on, well, everything, but my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release.

Then we should probably create and use a PGP key for bln.*. I'll put it
on our TODO list.

Ah, sorry, I must not have a propagation path for bln.* so I haven't seen
those. But yes, I think it's time.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Russ,

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Heiko Schlichting

Post by Russ Allbery
my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release.

I also agree, thanks!

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Heiko Schlichting
Then we should probably create and use a PGP key for bln.*. I'll put it
on our TODO list.

Ah, sorry, I must not have a propagation path for bln.* so I haven't seen
those. But yes, I think it's time.

The current list of bln.* in ftp.isc.org is the same as the one in
news.individual.net; so it is up to date :)
I bet there haven't been any control articles since 2016 for bln.*

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Heiko,

Post by Heiko Schlichting
Then we should probably create and use a PGP key for bln.*. I'll put it on
our TODO list.

:-)

Seems like bln.* is the only hierarchy that has sent unsigned control
articles since 2011.
Changing the default action from doit to drop will then probably have a
real impact only for bln.*.
Bad news for you Heiko, but good news for the change!

For the recall, I noted in 2021:

"""
The 16 keys still recognized by current GnuPG releases are the ones of
the Big-Eight, aioe, bofh, fr, grisbi, hacktic, hr, ie, mensa,
microsoft, pbinfo, perl, pgsql, sfnet, szaf, us.

belwue, bln, de, ffm, fido7, hun, it, ka, linux, openwatcom, uk and
z-netz have sent control articles these last 10 years, and still have
PGP-2 keys (except for bln, which does not have any PGP key)...
"""

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Russ,

Post by Russ Allbery
my intent is to disable the
processing of control messages for every hierarchy that doesn't have
PGP-signed control messages, probably the next time I make a new
control-archive release. I can leave the entries in commented out, so
people can always uncomment them again if they want to

I'm wondering whether it would be helpful to have in ftp.isc.org:
- a control.ctl file listing only hierarchies for which a control
article was sent during the last 10 years, and drop for the rest;
- a control-comprehensive.ctl file (or whatever name) with all known
hierarchies, and with a default to drop for actions not PGP-signed.

This way, it would simplify the default control.ctl file, and news
admins can better see what is still active.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE

. . .

- a control.ctl file listing only hierarchies for which a control
article was sent during the last 10 years, and drop for the rest;
- a control-comprehensive.ctl file (or whatever name) with all known
hierarchies, and with a default to drop for actions not PGP-signed.
This way, it would simplify the default control.ctl file, and news
admins can better see what is still active.

Please don't do that. Plenty of regional hierarchies lack hierarchy
administrators. But you can still find discussion in the *.misc or
*.general newsgroup, or maybe one other.

One has nothing at all to do with the other.

If no newsgroup is needed, there is no need to declare someone hierarchy
administrator. If there comes a time for a new newsgroup, then declare a
hierarchy administrator for the purpose of issuing the newgroup.

[Thomas Hochstein]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
- a control.ctl file listing only hierarchies for which a control
article was sent during the last 10 years, and drop for the rest;

[...]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Please don't do that. Plenty of regional hierarchies lack hierarchy
administrators.

If there are no hierarchy administrators, nobody is sending control
messages, so those hierarchise don't need a control.ctl entry.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If there comes a time for a new newsgroup, then declare a
hierarchy administrator for the purpose of issuing the newgroup.

... and add them to control.ctl, as necessary.

(The old entries from last century won't match anyway.)

-thh

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Thomas Hochstein

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Julien ÉLIE
- a control.ctl file listing only hierarchies for which a control
article was sent during the last 10 years, and drop for the rest;

[...]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Please don't do that. Plenty of regional hierarchies lack hierarchy
administrators.

If there are no hierarchy administrators, nobody is sending control
messages, so those hierarchise don't need a control.ctl entry.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If there comes a time for a new newsgroup, then declare a
hierarchy administrator for the purpose of issuing the newgroup.

... and add them to control.ctl, as necessary.
(The old entries from last century won't match anyway.)

In the regional hierarchies I'm familiar with, the control messages
would be sent under the old credentials.

Taking the entry out and putting it back is hardly an instant process.
This is not a good idea.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In the regional hierarchies I'm familiar with, the control messages
would be sent under the old credentials.
Taking the entry out and putting it back is hardly an instant process.
This is not a good idea.

In this thread, we discussed about changing the default values of
control.ctl to disable the processing of control messages for every
hierarchy that doesn't have PGP-signed control messages.

Sending the messages under the old credentials won't work either...
That's why I suggested to even go a bit further and no longer provide
these entries in the control.ctl file to simplify it.
Of course a full version of control.ctl can still be generated. News
admins can then choose between the stripped version with only still
active hierarchies, and the comprehensive version of more than 2700 lines...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
In the regional hierarchies I'm familiar with, the control messages
would be sent under the old credentials.
Taking the entry out and putting it back is hardly an instant process.
This is not a good idea.

In this thread, we discussed about changing the default values of
control.ctl to disable the processing of control messages for every
hierarchy that doesn't have PGP-signed control messages.

I am aware that Russ is interested in doing that and that you agree. I
am well aware of the history of Hipclone's denial of service attacks
with control messages, which is why PGP-signed control messages were
created to begin with. This was three and a half decades ago. A decision
was made at the time not to force regional hierarchies and other
international hierarchies, which rarely had hierarchy administrators who
were technically proficient, into implementing this.

We also know that various regional hierarchies and international
hierarchies in languages other than English didn't necessarily maintain
their group lists with control messages anyway, or that no one
responsible checked the archive of control messages to make sure it had
a complete record.

Given the distributed nature of Usenet administration, that's reality.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Sending the messages under the old credentials won't work either...

I am aware if you succeed in getting every News administrator to adopt
this, that will be the case. Without recognized PGP-signed credentials,
we're assuming a user will request creation of the group from his News
administrator and that the control message will be processed manually.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
That's why I suggested to even go a bit further and no longer provide
these entries in the control.ctl file to simplify it.

No, Julien, that makes things more complicated. In the absence of a News
administrator following discussion of the proposal to create the new
group in the *.general newsgroup for the hierarchy (there's unlikely to
be a *.config newsgroup), he's going to have to use his best judgment
to figure out if there's truly an audience for the group or someone
immature is screwing around, or someone trying to impose topic
moderation in unmoderated Usenet is causing trouble by attempting to
force discussion he doesn't want to see to take place elsewhere 'cuz he
just doesn't wanna use his own kill file.

At least with the old credentials remaining in control.ctl, even if
commented out, a newgroup message sent with the old credentials might
give a News administrator more confidence that the proposed newsgroup
went through some legitimate process to form a consensus that discussion
on that topic might more to the proposed newsgroup, and that it's not
being done for petty or spiteful reasons.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Of course a full version of control.ctl can still be generated. News
admins can then choose between the stripped version with only still
active hierarchies, and the comprehensive version of more than 2700 lines...

Why would a News administrator care about the number of lines in
control.ctl? If he needs to search for matching credentials, then he
wants to be able to find the information in that file and doesn't want
to figure out some other place to find it. Again, stripping out the
information he needs to find would actually make things more complicated.

Julien, you are conflating "active" with whether discussion is still
taking place in groups in that hierarchy. The issue of whether a
technically proficient hierarchy administrator exists for a regional
hierarchy is not any kind of hint to a News administrator that he should
create groups in that hierarchy.

This is a bad idea. Please do not do this.

I am going to remind you of a regional hierarchy that was well known for
being administered by technically-proficient people that had established
PGP-signed control messages, but the key was lost. I'm not going to name
the parties but given that most regional hierarchies have a fairly
stable set of newsgroups and might not change for close to a decade,
loss of the key is a real possibility.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
At least with the old credentials remaining in control.ctl, even if
commented out, a newgroup message sent with the old credentials might
give a News administrator more confidence that the proposed newsgroup
went through some legitimate process to form a consensus that discussion
on that topic might more to the proposed newsgroup, and that it's not
being done for petty or spiteful reasons.

Thanks for your detailed answer.
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't encourage people willing to have the
"latest known" list of newsgroups of regional hierarchies to just sync
their list with the active and newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org?
Once a week for instance they just run a tool which does that job (INN
comes with actsync to achieve that, but one can write his own tool if he
wants).

I am under the impression it will be easier to get the ftp.isc.org files
right and up-to-date, especially when there's a change in a control.ctl
entry, than hoping every news admin to update their control.ctl file and
keys.

Some news admins may want to set up processing control articles, and
follow up on control.ctl changes, but others may just want to sync their
list. It seems to be less burden.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The issue of whether a
technically proficient hierarchy administrator exists for a regional
hierarchy is not any kind of hint to a News administrator that he should
create groups in that hierarchy.

I see your point.
I was trying to find a way to improve and facilitate the updates.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I am going to remind you of a regional hierarchy that was well known for
being administered by technically-proficient people that had established
PGP-signed control messages, but the key was lost. I'm not going to name
the parties but given that most regional hierarchies have a fairly
stable set of newsgroups and might not change for close to a decade,
loss of the key is a real possibility.

I totally see :-)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi Adam,

Post by Adam H. Kerman
At least with the old credentials remaining in control.ctl, even if
commented out, a newgroup message sent with the old credentials might
give a News administrator more confidence that the proposed newsgroup
went through some legitimate process to form a consensus that discussion
on that topic might more to the proposed newsgroup, and that it's not
being done for petty or spiteful reasons.

Thanks for your detailed answer.
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't encourage people willing to have the
"latest known" list of newsgroups of regional hierarchies to just sync
their list with the active and newsgroups file in ftp.isc.org?

Alas, there is no shortage of archived control messages with the For your
newsgroup file line in bad syntax, or missing altogether. The occassional
proponent in alt.config is told of the need to get the syntax right and
to have a useful brief description because we know that certain News
administrators require that the two files at ftp.isc.org be updated.

I'm unclear on what Russ's plan to require PGP-signed control messages
will mean for processing control messages at ftp.isc.org with respect to
archiving and updating the two files.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Once a week for instance they just run a tool which does that job (INN
comes with actsync to achieve that, but one can write his own tool if he
wants).
I am under the impression it will be easier to get the ftp.isc.org files
right and up-to-date, especially when there's a change in a control.ctl
entry, than hoping every news admin to update their control.ctl file and
keys.

You could be right. I just don't see the issue getting fixed, given that
some control messages aren't archived, some instances in which there
were no newgroup messages, and missing or lousy syntax of the For your
newsgroups file line.

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Some news admins may want to set up processing control articles, and
follow up on control.ctl changes, but others may just want to sync their
list. It seems to be less burden.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The issue of whether a
technically proficient hierarchy administrator exists for a regional
hierarchy is not any kind of hint to a News administrator that he should
create groups in that hierarchy.

I see your point.
I was trying to find a way to improve and facilitate the updates.

It would have been nice if the person issuing the control message
checked the archive to make sure it was acted upon as expected.

Post by Julien ÉLIE

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I am going to remind you of a regional hierarchy that was well known for
being administered by technically-proficient people that had established
PGP-signed control messages, but the key was lost. I'm not going to name
the parties but given that most regional hierarchies have a fairly
stable set of newsgroups and might not change for close to a decade,
loss of the key is a real possibility.

I totally see :-)

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm unclear on what Russ's plan to require PGP-signed control messages
will mean for processing control messages at ftp.isc.org with respect to
archiving and updating the two files.

I'm happy to keep archiving everything, signed or not, as long as
ftp.isc.org is willing to serve it, since it's entirely automated and I
don't think I spend even an hour a year on it. (Should they ever stop
providing hosting, the archive will probably disappear, since I'm not
willing to deal with the hassle and potential legal liability of hosting
any sort of archive personally. But so far they seem happy to keep doing
it.)

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You could be right. I just don't see the issue getting fixed, given that
some control messages aren't archived, some instances in which there
were no newgroup messages, and missing or lousy syntax of the For your
newsgroups file line.

Fixing the ftp.isc.org file just requires someone mailing
usenet-***@isc.org saying what they're trying to do. I might try to
figure out whether they're legitimate, or ask here, but thankfully there's
not a lot of active abuse at the moment and usually it's pretty easy to
tell whether something is above-board. And we can always reverse whatever
changes we make.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
It would have been nice if the person issuing the control message
checked the archive to make sure it was acted upon as expected.

This is part of why I automatically post all the changes once a week.
(Except for any of the "accept newgroup messages from anyone" hierarchies,
since that's just way too easy to exploit. free.* in particular is
essentially nothing but personal insults in newsgroup name form.)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'm unclear on what Russ's plan to require PGP-signed control messages
will mean for processing control messages at ftp.isc.org with respect to
archiving and updating the two files.

I'm happy to keep archiving everything, signed or not, as long as
ftp.isc.org is willing to serve it, since it's entirely automated and I
don't think I spend even an hour a year on it. (Should they ever stop
providing hosting, the archive will probably disappear, since I'm not
willing to deal with the hassle and potential legal liability of hosting
any sort of archive personally. But so far they seem happy to keep doing
it.)

Will unsigned control messages with For your newsgroups file lines in
good syntax update active and newsgroups?

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Will unsigned control messages with For your newsgroups file lines in
good syntax update active and newsgroups?

For alt.* and free.*, yes. For everything else, not once I get a chance
to do a new control-archive release and require PGP.

Currently, this is a very theoretical concern, since (per the previous
discussion) I don't believe anyone is issuing unsigned control messages
for anything other than alt.* and free.* (and I haven't seen a new alt.*
control message for a while). If it becomes a practical problem in some
regional hierarchy, just email usenet-***@isc.org and I'm sure we can
sort things out. I have frequently made manual updates to regional
hierarchies in the past when it was too difficult to sort out the control
messages for whatever reason.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Russ Allbery

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Will unsigned control messages with For your newsgroups file lines in
good syntax update active and newsgroups?

For alt.* and free.*, yes. For everything else, not once I get a chance
to do a new control-archive release and require PGP.
Currently, this is a very theoretical concern, since (per the previous
discussion) I don't believe anyone is issuing unsigned control messages
for anything other than alt.* and free.* (and I haven't seen a new alt.*
control message for a while). If it becomes a practical problem in some
sort things out. I have frequently made manual updates to regional
hierarchies in the past when it was too difficult to sort out the control
messages for whatever reason.

This will then make you hierarchy administrator for a whole lot of
hierarchies.

Could you at least require the proponent or self-declared hierarchy
administrator to issue an unsigned control message to get archived
with the newsgroups file line in good syntax before you make the manual
change? That there's no archived control message in all circumstances
has not been helpful.

[Russ Allbery]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Russ Allbery
Currently, this is a very theoretical concern, since (per the previous
discussion) I don't believe anyone is issuing unsigned control messages
for anything other than alt.* and free.* (and I haven't seen a new
alt.* control message for a while). If it becomes a practical problem
sure we can sort things out. I have frequently made manual updates to
regional hierarchies in the past when it was too difficult to sort out
the control messages for whatever reason.

This will then make you hierarchy administrator for a whole lot of
hierarchies.
Could you at least require the proponent or self-declared hierarchy
administrator to issue an unsigned control message to get archived with
the newsgroups file line in good syntax before you make the manual
change? That there's no archived control message in all circumstances
has not been helpful.

Sorry, I think I was confusing. What I meant by "if it becomes a
practical problem" is specifically "if a hierarchy administrator who is
not currently issuing control messages starts up again, but doesn't start
using PGP signatures for some reason, they can then contact me and we can
work out how to process those control messages."

I didn't mean to imply I was just going to make changes without anyone
even trying to issue control messages, just that if PGP is a blocker
(which seemed to be your concern) people can always contact usenet-config
and we can figure out a good way forward.

I'm not saying I'll *never* make changes without insisting someone issue a
control message, since the point of the hierarchy lists is to be (some
version of) correct, and there have been cases where we've discovered that
most of the sites carrying the hierarchy had agreed on a group list that
was different than what ftp.isc.org had, and there was no reason to not
just fix it. Or, similarly, sometimes we reach a consensus that a
hierarchy is obsolete, and I've removed it without requiring someone issue
rmgroup messages for everything. But in general the expectation is that
people should issue control messages to change hierarchies.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Russ,

Post by Russ Allbery
I don't believe anyone is issuing unsigned control messages
for anything other than alt.* and free.* (and I haven't seen a new alt.*
control message for a while).

The latest control messages for alt.* date back to 2021, and created:

alt.comp.os.windows-11
alt.comp.software.firefox
alt.comp.software.seamonkey
alt.comp.software.thunderbird
alt.binaries.by-hash

Apart from alt.binaries.by-hash that I have not looked at, all the other
created newsgroups seem pretty active, that's great!
These were good choices, and successful creations.

[John Hall]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I've seen that the UK ISP Demon Internet no longer exists in the form
of the demon.co.uk domain (closed in 2020). Should the demon.*
hierarchy still therefore be considered as managed?
Wouldn't it be unmanaged or defunct now?
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=DEMON

As a former Demon user and also a user of the demon.* hierarchy, I'd
have thought that yes, it should be considered to be unmanaged. After a
succession of take-overs, Demon finished up as part of Vodafone which,
as you say, finally killed off the last services under the Demon name in
2020. By that point, I doubt whether there was anyone left at Vodafone
who even knew what newsgroups were, let alone that there were some that
they were theoretically responsible for managing.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi John,

Post by John Hall

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I've seen that the UK ISP Demon Internet no longer exists in the form
of the demon.co.uk domain (closed in 2020).  Should the demon.*
hierarchy still therefore be considered as managed?
Wouldn't it be unmanaged or defunct now?

As a former Demon user and also a user of the demon.* hierarchy, I'd
have thought that yes, it should be considered to be unmanaged. After a
succession of take-overs, Demon finished up as part of Vodafone which,
as you say, finally killed off the last services under the Demon name in
2020. By that point, I doubt whether there was anyone left at Vodafone
who even knew what newsgroups were, let alone that there were some that
they were theoretically responsible for managing.

Thanks for your message.
The demon.* hierarchy can therefore be considered historic or defunct.

[John Hall]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi John,

Post by John Hall

Post by Julien ÉLIE
I've seen that the UK ISP Demon Internet no longer exists in the
form of the demon.co.uk domain (closed in 2020).  Should the demon.*
hierarchy still therefore be considered as managed?
Wouldn't it be unmanaged or defunct now?

As a former Demon user and also a user of the demon.* hierarchy, I'd
have thought that yes, it should be considered to be unmanaged. After
a succession of take-overs, Demon finished up as part of Vodafone
which, as you say, finally killed off the last services under the
Demon name in 2020. By that point, I doubt whether there was anyone
left at Vodafone who even knew what newsgroups were, let alone that
there were some that they were theoretically responsible for managing.

Thanks for your message.
The demon.* hierarchy can therefore be considered historic or defunct.

"Historic" is probably a better subscription than "defunct", as at least
one of the groups is still being used for its intended purpose. That is
demon.ip.support.turnpike. Turnpike is an email and news client, and
when Demon took over the company that developed it they set up the
group. The software is still in use by a few people (including myself as
you can see by this message's headers), and the newsgroup has become a
self-help group which still gets maybe a couple of hundred posts a year.

[Jason Evans]

Post by Julien ÉLIE
Hi all,
As for cz.*, ftp.vslib.cz no longer exists; and the new tul.cz web site
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=CZ

Let me ask around about this one tomorrow at work. I know some people who
might know some people, etc.

[Julien ÉLIE]

Hi Jason,

Post by Jason Evans

Post by Julien ÉLIE
As for cz.*, ftp.vslib.cz no longer exists; and the new tul.cz web site
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=CZ

Let me ask around about this one tomorrow at work. I know some people who
might know some people, etc.

Do you happen to have obtained a response?