Posted by Dick Gaughan on 01/05/08 17:51

In <dpednTBC095ADeDanZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>
>There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup.

That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
trolls and wreckers.

When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
related to the content of posts.

Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
other than hoots of laughter.

--
DG

Mail to usenet@gaelweb.co.uk goes to dev/null.

[Back to original message]