s-o-1036 June 1994
[< Prev]
[TOC] [ Next >]
7.3. newgroup
The newgroup control message requests that a new newsgroup
be created:
newgroup-arguments = newsgroup-name [ space moderation ]
moderation = "moderated" / "unmoderated"
newgroup-body = body
/ [ body ] descriptor [ body ]
descriptor = descriptor-tag eol description-line eol
descriptor-tag = "For your newsgroups file:"
description-line = newsgroup-name space description
description = nonblank-text [ " (Moderated)" ]
The first argument names the newsgroup to be created, and
the second one (if present) indicates whether it is moder-
ated. If there is no second argument, the default is
"unmoderated".
NOTE: Implementors are warned that there is occa-
sional use of other forms in the second argument.
It is suggested that such violations of this
Draft, which are also violations of RFC 1036,
cause the newgroup message to be ignored. RFC
1036 was slightly vague about how second arguments
other than "moderated" were to be treated (specif-
ically, whether they were illegal or just
ignored), but it is thought that all existing
major implementations will handle "unmoderated"
correctly, and it appears desirable to tighten up
the specs to make it possible for other forms to
be used in future.
The body is a comment, which software MUST ignore, except
that if it contains a descriptor, the description line is
intended to be suitable for addition to a list of newsgroup
descriptions. The description cannot be continued onto
later lines, but is not constrained to any particular
length. Moderated newsgroups have descriptions that end
with the string " (Moderated)" (note that this string begins
with a blank).
NOTE: It is unfortunate that the description line
is part of the body, rather than being supplied in
a header, but this is established practice. News-
group creators are cautioned that the descriptor
tag must be reproduced exactly as given above,
alone on a line, and is case-sensitive. (To
reduce errors in this regard, posting agents might
wish to question or reject newgroup messages which
do not contain a descriptor.) Given the desire
for short lines, description writers should avoid
content-free phrases like "discussion of" and
"news about", and stick to defining what the
INTERNET DRAFT to be NEWS sec. 7.3
newsgroup is about.
The remainder of the body SHOULD contain an explanation of
the purpose of the newsgroup and the decision to create it.
NOTE: Criteria for newsgroup creation vary widely
and are outside the scope of this Draft, but if
formal procedures of one kind or another were fol-
lowed in the decision, the body should mention
this. Administrators often look for such informa-
tion when deciding whether to comply with cre-
ation/deletion requests.
A newgroup message which lacks an Approved header MUST be
ignored.
NOTE: It would also be desirable to ignore a new-
group message unless its Approved header names a
person who is authorized (in some sense) to create
such a newsgroup. A cooperating subnet with suf-
ficiently strong coordination to maintain a cor-
rect and current list of authorized creators might
wish to do so for its internal newsgroups. It
also (or alternatively) might wish to ignore a
newgroup message for an internal newsgroup that
was posted (or cross-posted) to a non-internal
newsgroup.
NOTE: As mentioned in section 6.10, some form of
(cryptographic?) authentication of Approved head-
ers would be highly desirable, especially for con-
trol messages.
It would be desirable to provide some way of supplying a
moderator's address in a newgroup message for a moderated
newsgroup, but this will cause problems unless effective
authentication is available, so it is left for future work.
NOTE: This leaves news administrators stuck with
the annoying chore of arranging proper mailing of
moderated-newsgroup submissions. On Usenet, this
can be simplified by exploiting a forwarding
facility that some major sites provide: they main-
tain forwarding addresses, each the name of a mod-
erated newsgroup with all periods (".", ASCII 46)
replaced by hyphens ("-", ASCII 45), which forward
mail to the current newsgroup moderators. More
advice on the subject of forwarding to moderators
can be found in the document titled "How to Con-
struct the Mailpaths File", posted regularly to
the Usenet newsgroups news.lists, news.admin.misc,
and news.answers.
INTERNET DRAFT to be NEWS sec. 7.3
A newgroup message naming a newsgroup that already exists is
requesting a change in the moderation status or description
of the newsgroup. The same rules apply.
[< Prev]
[TOC] [ Next >]
#Diff to first older
--- ../rfc1036/Newgroup.out December 1987
+++ ../s-o-1036/Newgroup.out June 1994
@@ -1,15 +1,118 @@
-3.3. Newgroup
+7.3. newgroup
- newgroup <groupname> [moderated]
+The newgroup control message requests that a new newsgroup
+be created:
- This control message creates a new newsgroup with the given name.
- Since no messages may be posted or forwarded until a newsgroup is
- created, this message is required before a newsgroup can be used.
- The body of the message is expected to be a short paragraph
- describing the intended use of the newsgroup.
-
- If the second argument is present and it is the keyword moderated,
- the group should be created moderated instead of the default of
- unmoderated. The newgroup message should be ignored unless there is
- an "Approved" line in the same message header.
+ newgroup-arguments = newsgroup-name [ space moderation ]
+ moderation = "moderated" / "unmoderated"
+ newgroup-body = body
+ / [ body ] descriptor [ body ]
+ descriptor = descriptor-tag eol description-line eol
+ descriptor-tag = "For your newsgroups file:"
+ description-line = newsgroup-name space description
+ description = nonblank-text [ " (Moderated)" ]
+
+The first argument names the newsgroup to be created, and
+the second one (if present) indicates whether it is moder-
+ated. If there is no second argument, the default is
+"unmoderated".
+
+ NOTE: Implementors are warned that there is occa-
+ sional use of other forms in the second argument.
+ It is suggested that such violations of this
+ Draft, which are also violations of RFC 1036,
+ cause the newgroup message to be ignored. RFC
+ 1036 was slightly vague about how second arguments
+ other than "moderated" were to be treated (specif-
+ ically, whether they were illegal or just
+ ignored), but it is thought that all existing
+ major implementations will handle "unmoderated"
+ correctly, and it appears desirable to tighten up
+ the specs to make it possible for other forms to
+ be used in future.
+
+The body is a comment, which software MUST ignore, except
+that if it contains a descriptor, the description line is
+intended to be suitable for addition to a list of newsgroup
+descriptions. The description cannot be continued onto
+later lines, but is not constrained to any particular
+length. Moderated newsgroups have descriptions that end
+with the string " (Moderated)" (note that this string begins
+with a blank).
+
+ NOTE: It is unfortunate that the description line
+ is part of the body, rather than being supplied in
+ a header, but this is established practice. News-
+ group creators are cautioned that the descriptor
+ tag must be reproduced exactly as given above,
+ alone on a line, and is case-sensitive. (To
+ reduce errors in this regard, posting agents might
+ wish to question or reject newgroup messages which
+ do not contain a descriptor.) Given the desire
+ for short lines, description writers should avoid
+ content-free phrases like "discussion of" and
+ "news about", and stick to defining what the
+
+INTERNET DRAFT to be NEWS sec. 7.3
+
+
+ newsgroup is about.
+
+The remainder of the body SHOULD contain an explanation of
+the purpose of the newsgroup and the decision to create it.
+
+ NOTE: Criteria for newsgroup creation vary widely
+ and are outside the scope of this Draft, but if
+ formal procedures of one kind or another were fol-
+ lowed in the decision, the body should mention
+ this. Administrators often look for such informa-
+ tion when deciding whether to comply with cre-
+ ation/deletion requests.
+
+A newgroup message which lacks an Approved header MUST be
+ignored.
+
+ NOTE: It would also be desirable to ignore a new-
+ group message unless its Approved header names a
+ person who is authorized (in some sense) to create
+ such a newsgroup. A cooperating subnet with suf-
+ ficiently strong coordination to maintain a cor-
+ rect and current list of authorized creators might
+ wish to do so for its internal newsgroups. It
+ also (or alternatively) might wish to ignore a
+ newgroup message for an internal newsgroup that
+ was posted (or cross-posted) to a non-internal
+ newsgroup.
+
+ NOTE: As mentioned in section 6.10, some form of
+ (cryptographic?) authentication of Approved head-
+ ers would be highly desirable, especially for con-
+ trol messages.
+
+It would be desirable to provide some way of supplying a
+moderator's address in a newgroup message for a moderated
+newsgroup, but this will cause problems unless effective
+authentication is available, so it is left for future work.
+
+ NOTE: This leaves news administrators stuck with
+ the annoying chore of arranging proper mailing of
+ moderated-newsgroup submissions. On Usenet, this
+ can be simplified by exploiting a forwarding
+ facility that some major sites provide: they main-
+ tain forwarding addresses, each the name of a mod-
+ erated newsgroup with all periods (".", ASCII 46)
+ replaced by hyphens ("-", ASCII 45), which forward
+ mail to the current newsgroup moderators. More
+ advice on the subject of forwarding to moderators
+ can be found in the document titled "How to Con-
+ struct the Mailpaths File", posted regularly to
+ the Usenet newsgroups news.lists, news.admin.misc,
+ and news.answers.
+
+INTERNET DRAFT to be NEWS sec. 7.3
+
+
+A newgroup message naming a newsgroup that already exists is
+requesting a change in the moderation status or description
+of the newsgroup. The same rules apply.