|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 01:41
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:51:56 +0000, Dick Gaughan
<usenet@gaelweb.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
There aren't unless the complaint is false and the ISP doesn't check
it out first.
> A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
>arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.
BI>20 is spam. Most NSP's will, indeed, do something about that.
>
>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.
Hammer. Nail. Head.
>
>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.
Only k00ks claim SPAM based on content.
>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.
Spam is anything HE doesn't like to read. Problem for him: He's not
an NSP.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
[Back to original message]
|