Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds >and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. >It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and >definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms >inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an >informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive >correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, >essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is >sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. >Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good >behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. >Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting >how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond >the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several >different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but >most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to >many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is >abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher >end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to >determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the >following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to >limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided >upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site >"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally >done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to >reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet >if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" >(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin ><URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, >mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, >hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial >advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to >commerce@acpub.duke.edu.
Any http(s) site available?
Also does ftp.uu.net, does it still exist?
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Any http(s) site available?
Also does ftp.uu.net, does it still exist?
Maybe you missed this part:
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
It's spam at this point.
-bruce
bje@ripco.com
bje@ripco.com wrote:
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Any http(s) site available?
Also does ftp.uu.net, does it still exist?
Maybe you missed this part:
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
It's spam at this point.
1998? This must be being autoposted :-(
It's spam at this point.
I think discussion about this spam is probably more activity than I
remember seeing in a while.
The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Any http(s) site available?
Also does ftp.uu.net, does it still exist?
Maybe you missed this part:
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
It's spam at this point.
Please elucidate, Bruce. What makes this spam, to the extent is rises
to being a network abuse issue, in your esteemed opinion?
As far as I've seen, it's the same content posted to two groups per run.
"Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term
"spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory.
EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical article."
In accordance with the 21st century technology, the main message is
posted in HTML format. Some people may not be able to read it in any
of the non-mozilla newsreaders. For them I give them my customary
two fingers salute and send my FO greetings.
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Please elucidate, Bruce. What makes this spam, to the extent is
rises to being a network abuse issue, in your esteemed opinion?
Because it became what it's trying to explain.
Have you read it?
"Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term
"spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and
self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies
of a substantively identical article."
Once a week to these:
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
news.admin.net-abuse.misc
news.answers
I didn't do the math for "The Breidbart Index" but once a month to
maybe news.announce.newusers would be enough in my book.
Plus most of the information is obsolete or just plain wrong.
Written in 1998, that was the great war with the green card lawyers?
Path: ..!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hatchetman.killfile.org
+ !not-for-mail
From: tskirvin[@]uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins,
+ news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.sightings,
+ news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.answers
Subject: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines
Supersedes: <spam-faq.20010603050002$6dcc@news.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:00:03 -0500
Organization: Killfiles, Unlimited
Lines: 162
Approved: news-answers-request[@]MIT.EDU, nanas-req[@]ravenna.com
Expires: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:00:03 GMT
Message-ID: <spam-faq.20010610050003$23d8@news.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: tskirvin[@]uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: hatchetman.killfile.org
X-Trace: hatchetman.killfile.org 992149206 24623 192.168.1.250
+ (10 Jun 2001 05:00:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse[@]killfile.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jun 2001 05:00:05 GMT
Summary: This posting contains the current Spam definitions, thresholds, >>> and guidelines, as used by most major spam cancellers and news
administrators.
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
iD8DBQE7Iv7Uv1i8LqUfqQURAu75AKCByCAQoDe5SLt1ICK45DA8duu9xwCeMDi0
ZpquOSFWWwe694HyjVTIZ8o=
=oJxj
I dunno where you came up with "network abuse issue", they should
just stop posting that fucking thing. It's worthless. It's spam by
its own definition.
So, Bruce, have you attempted to contact Skirv, or are you simply
going to continue to whinge, where you can be absolutely certain he'll
never see it?
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10 URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/ Maintainer:tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
An automated bot posted:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer:tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Avast maties, be ye not hornswoggled. This FAQ be like a ghost ship with
no livin' hand on the wheel or tiller.
This FAQ be not updated for o'er twenty years, and now be full o' dead
as bilge water links. Things change o'er time, and tharr be no livin'
soul keepin' the FAQ true to course. The maintainer, we be told,
withdrew from Usenet years ago.
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
That newsgroup be dead as bilge water for o'er seven years. The last
livin' soul posted tharr in May 2014.
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
That link be dead as bilge water. It be not found searchin' faqs.org.
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
That link be dead as bilge water too. It too be not found searchin'
faqs.org.
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
That link be dead as bilge water. The same be true for the next links below.
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al >> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is
abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to
limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site "cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" (Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin <URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to comm...@acpub.duke.edu.
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10 URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/ Maintainer:tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds >and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. >It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and >definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms >inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an >informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive >correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, >essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is >sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. >Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good >behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. >Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting >how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond >the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several >different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but >most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to >many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is >abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher >end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to >determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the >following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to >limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided >upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site >"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally >done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to >reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet >if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" >(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin ><URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, >mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, >hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial >advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to >commerce@acpub.duke.edu.
In article <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam
thresholds and ensure that the definitions of these terms are
available and consistent. It is believed that most, if not all,
spam cancellers use these terms and definitions in their work;
however, many other people use the terms inappropriately, which
leads to confusion in discussions. This is an informal FAQ aimed
at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term
"spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and
self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate
copies of a substantively identical article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article
is sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The
signature is included in the determination. These are examples of >substantively identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the >message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or >not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said >and not _what_ was said.
Any way to make this into a NNTP SW module?
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds >and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. >It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and >definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms >inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an >informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive >correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, >essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is >sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. >Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good >behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. >Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting >how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond >the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several >different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but >most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to >many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is >abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher >end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to >determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the >following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to >limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided >upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site >"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally >done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to >reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet >if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" >(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin ><URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, >mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, >hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial >advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to >commerce@acpub.duke.edu.
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds >and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. >It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and >definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms >inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an >informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive >correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, >essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is >sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. >Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good >behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. >Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting >how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond >the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several >different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but >most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to >many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is >abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher >end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to >determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the >following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to >limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided >upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site >"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally >done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to >reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet >if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al ><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" >(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin ><URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, >mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, >hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial >advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to >commerce@acpub.duke.edu.
In article <spam-faq.20230326000201$a337@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
anything Google can use to get rid of its spamtrollers?
[ x-posted to rec.arts.drwho ]
[ followup set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ]
On Sunday, 26 March 2023 00:13 -0000,
in article <tvo2mu$i2o$34@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
Dave "The Doctor" Yadallee <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <spam-faq.20230326000201$a337@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
[ snip weekly posting of the spam FAQ ]
anything Google can use to get rid of its spamtrollers?
Spamtrollers exist only in your mind, spammer. Spammers post the same
thing again and again, ie. EMP. Trolls look for a response: good, bad
or indifferent. You, Dave Yadallee, are the fish that seems incapable
of learning there is a hook hidden in the bait being trailed, in the
waters of you native habitat.
Trolling is what your buddy Tim does quite successfully, in
rec.arts.drwho, as each of his posts provokes a followup from you.
Tim's posts cannot be construed as spam, as each is unique and
individually crafted. They may be obnoxious and they are definitely off-topic, but it is not spam and it is not network abuse. (Tim also demonstrates a touch of originality and humor, both of which would
serve you well.)
Spamming is what you do, Dave, as your responses are copy and paste boilerplate, which you post by the thousands. This is Excessive Multi-Posting, as described in the spam FAQ:
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
While you post followups to this FAQ, there is little evidence that
you have read, let alone understood it.
So far as your whining about Google Groups, what you are doing is not
going to make any difference. All you have demonstrated is that you
are abscessed and act by compulsion, while completely ignoring any
semblance of reality or normalcy. In the hundreds of thousands of
time you posted your demand, you have made exactly no progress toward depeering Google Groups, while you, yourself, post links to your
Google Groups searches for your own spammed phrase.
You are never going to depeer Google Groups, no matter how many times
you post this inane demand.
Rather than trashing the newsgroups to which you post, have you
considered rendering your complaints to Google?
$ whois -h whois.abuse.net googlegroups.com
abuse@googlegroups.com (for googlegroups.com)
abuse@google.com (for googlegroups.com)
Your best hope is to annoy Google sufficiently, that they block access
to whatever group you think you're trying to protect. This is why one
cannot access news.admin.net-abuse.email, using the lame G2 http2nntp (web2news) interface. It sure beats the hell out of simply
compounding the non-net-abuse issue of off-topic postings, by
spamming. Spamming Usenet is a network abuse issue.
Please stop spamming.
Please stop spamming.
The thing that's extra frustrating is that Dave operates his own news
server. He has full control over whether he sees any of the spam that
he so enjoys redistributing. He screams about "Depeer Google Now!",
but won't even take the step of locking his door to it.
On 2023-03-26, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Please stop spamming.
The thing that's extra frustrating is that Dave operates his own
news server. He has full control over whether he sees any of the
spam that he so enjoys redistributing. He screams about "Depeer
Google Now!", but won't even take the step of locking his door to
it.
$ telnet news nntp
Trying 166.84.1.70...
Connected to news.lb.panix.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
200 reader2.panix.com InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.6.4 ready (posting ok) >>> STAT <tvlocm$met$34@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlocq$met$35@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlocu$met$36@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlod3$met$37@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlod8$met$38@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlodd$met$39@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlodl$met$40@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvlods$met$41@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvloe1$met$42@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvloe9$met$43@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvloeg$met$44@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvloem$met$45@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmsi9$2hnj$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmsv7$2kr5$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmuh7$8it$9@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmuis$8it$16@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmulf$8it$24@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmulj$8it$25@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmulv$8it$26@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmuml$8it$27@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmuqj$8it$28@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmutj$8it$29@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmuuv$8it$30@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv2v$8it$31@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv36$8it$32@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv46$8it$33@gallifrey.nk.ca>
430 No such article@gallifrey.nk.ca>
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
223 0 <tvmsi9$2hnj$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> status
223 0 <tvmsv7$2kr5$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> status
223 0 <tvmuh7$8it$9@gallifrey.nk.ca> status
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
ifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv57$8it$36@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv5b$8it$37@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv5f$8it$38@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv5k$8it$39@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv5r$8it$40@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv5v$8it$41@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv7g$8it$43@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmv8r$8it$44@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmva6$8it$45@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmvaj$8it$46@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmvb5$8it$47@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmvc4$8it$48@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmvcd$8it$49@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvmvfm$8it$64@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvn03q$fbu$1@gallifrey.nk.ca>
STAT <tvn04c$fbu$2@gallifrey.nk.ca>
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
430 No such article
QUIT
205 Bye!
Connection closed by foreign host.
I truly wish this were not the case.
On 3/26/23 7:18 PM, David Ritz wrote:
I truly wish this were not the case.
I wish Dave would not quote the spam he's reporting.
He and I have discussed that message headers are sufficient.
We've also discussed that re-posting the body is tantamount to
sending the spam himself.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[ x-posted to rec.arts.drwho ]
[ followup set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ]
On Sunday, 26 March 2023 00:13 -0000,
in article <tvo2mu$i2o$34@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
Dave "The Doctor" Yadallee <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <spam-faq.20230326000201$a337@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
[ snip weekly posting of the spam FAQ ]
anything Google can use to get rid of its spamtrollers?
Spamtrollers exist only in your mind, spammer. Spammers post the same
thing again and again, ie. EMP. Trolls look for a response: good, bad
or indifferent. You, Dave Yadallee, are the fish that seems incapable
of learning there is a hook hidden in the bait being trailed, in the
waters of you native habitat.
Trolling is what your buddy Tim does quite successfully, in
rec.arts.drwho, as each of his posts provokes a followup from you.
Tim's posts cannot be construed as spam, as each is unique and
individually crafted. They may be obnoxious and they are definitely off-topic, but it is not spam and it is not network abuse. (Tim also demonstrates a touch of originality and humor, both of which would
serve you well.)
Spamming is what you do, Dave, as your responses are copy and paste boilerplate, which you post by the thousands. This is Excessive Multi-Posting, as described in the spam FAQ:
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
While you post followups to this FAQ, there is little evidence that
you have read, let alone understood it.
So far as your whining about Google Groups, what you are doing is not
going to make any difference. All you have demonstrated is that you
are abscessed and act by compulsion, while completely ignoring any
semblance of reality or normalcy. In the hundreds of thousands of
time you posted your demand, you have made exactly no progress toward depeering Google Groups, while you, yourself, post links to your
Google Groups searches for your own spammed phrase.
You are never going to depeer Google Groups, no matter how many times
you post this inane demand.
Rather than trashing the newsgroups to which you post, have you
considered rendering your complaints to Google?
$ whois -h whois.abuse.net googlegroups.com
abuse@googlegroups.com (for googlegroups.com)
abuse@google.com (for googlegroups.com)
Your best hope is to annoy Google sufficiently, that they block access
to whatever group you think you're trying to protect. This is why one
cannot access news.admin.net-abuse.email, using the lame G2 http2nntp (web2news) interface. It sure beats the hell out of simply
compounding the non-net-abuse issue of off-topic postings, by
spamming. Spamming Usenet is a network abuse issue.
Please stop spamming.
- --
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
"Pray look better, Sir . . . those things yonder are no giants, but
windmills." - Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCZCCXFQAKCRBSvCmZGhLe 6w3LAJ4ogGleqzdG3UNUYjOalkjvIvOX7gCg6sWaYdzp/metuUzWLlqUUwdTlR8=
=n9uK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Ritz wrote on 27/3/23 6:03 am:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hear!! Hear!
Hash: SHA1
[ x-posted to rec.arts.drwho ]
[ followup set to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet ]
On Sunday, 26 March 2023 00:13 -0000,
in article <tvo2mu$i2o$34@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
Dave "The Doctor" Yadallee <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
In article <spam-faq.20230326000201$a337@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
[ snip weekly posting of the spam FAQ ]
anything Google can use to get rid of its spamtrollers?
Spamtrollers exist only in your mind, spammer. Spammers post the same
thing again and again, ie. EMP. Trolls look for a response: good, bad
or indifferent. You, Dave Yadallee, are the fish that seems incapable
of learning there is a hook hidden in the bait being trailed, in the
waters of you native habitat.
Trolling is what your buddy Tim does quite successfully, in
rec.arts.drwho, as each of his posts provokes a followup from you.
Tim's posts cannot be construed as spam, as each is unique and
individually crafted. They may be obnoxious and they are definitely
off-topic, but it is not spam and it is not network abuse. (Tim also
demonstrates a touch of originality and humor, both of which would
serve you well.)
Spamming is what you do, Dave, as your responses are copy and paste
boilerplate, which you post by the thousands. This is Excessive
Multi-Posting, as described in the spam FAQ:
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
While you post followups to this FAQ, there is little evidence that
you have read, let alone understood it.
So far as your whining about Google Groups, what you are doing is not
going to make any difference. All you have demonstrated is that you
are abscessed and act by compulsion, while completely ignoring any
semblance of reality or normalcy. In the hundreds of thousands of
time you posted your demand, you have made exactly no progress toward
depeering Google Groups, while you, yourself, post links to your
Google Groups searches for your own spammed phrase.
You are never going to depeer Google Groups, no matter how many times
you post this inane demand.
Rather than trashing the newsgroups to which you post, have you
considered rendering your complaints to Google?
$ whois -h whois.abuse.net googlegroups.com
abuse@googlegroups.com (for googlegroups.com)
abuse@google.com (for googlegroups.com)
Your best hope is to annoy Google sufficiently, that they block access
to whatever group you think you're trying to protect. This is why one
cannot access news.admin.net-abuse.email, using the lame G2 http2nntp
(web2news) interface. It sure beats the hell out of simply
compounding the non-net-abuse issue of off-topic postings, by
spamming. Spamming Usenet is a network abuse issue.
Please stop spamming.
- --
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
"Pray look better, Sir . . . those things yonder are no giants, but
windmills." - Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCZCCXFQAKCRBSvCmZGhLe
6w3LAJ4ogGleqzdG3UNUYjOalkjvIvOX7gCg6sWaYdzp/metuUzWLlqUUwdTlR8=
=n9uK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Daniel
Then will you report Tim for Spamming Daniel?
I'm about to filter him on my personal news server. -- I'm now
paying attention to see the ratio of ham vs spam that he
/re/distributes (seemingly wantonly). If he's not providing more ham
than he is spam, he's going to be filtered.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
I'm about to filter him on my personal news server. -- I'm now
paying attention to see the ratio of ham vs spam that he
/re/distributes (seemingly wantonly). If he's not providing more
ham than he is spam, he's going to be filtered.
I've done the same. I noticed a while ago that he was consistently
posting more articles than anyone else in my spool, but hadn't
looked into what they were until now.
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faqhttps://dashboardeksekutif.deliserdangkab.go.id/vendor/slot-gacor-online/ https://pariwisata.situbondokab.go.id/css/slot-pulsa/ http://akun-pro-kamboja.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/ http://akun-pro-vietnam.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/ http://slot-ovo.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/ https://sumsel.bawaslu.go.id/akun-pro-jepang/ http://slot-gacor.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/ http://slot-dana.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/ http://slot-pulsa.bpkad.madiunkab.go.id/
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent. It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive correctness.
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."
"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.
Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group. Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.
Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net. Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond the scope of this FAQ.
This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is
abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).
Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to determine whether a spam is cancellable.
The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the following measures:
1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to
limitations in Usenet software.
These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.
Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site "cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
if you need this patch.
Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes. <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" (Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin <URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se, mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw, hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to comm...@acpub.duke.edu.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia, (mis)used by the same "flood champ"
i.e. gaming spammer, is this one: 103.14.250.60
Lutz
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
On 1/7/24 01:02, Tim Skirvin wrote:I think the use of expires: and/or supercedes: headers would be
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
IMO outdated FAQs should also be considered a form of spam. Surely
this has been posted more than 400 times, so it meets its own criteria
for spam.
immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:
On 1/7/24 01:02, Tim Skirvin wrote:I think the use of expires: and/or supercedes: headers would be
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faqIMO outdated FAQs should also be considered a form of spam. Surely
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
this has been posted more than 400 times, so it meets its own criteria
for spam.
considerate, at least.
Thus spake Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk>
immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:
On 1/7/24 01:02, Tim Skirvin wrote:I think the use of expires: and/or supercedes: headers would be
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faqIMO outdated FAQs should also be considered a form of spam. Surely
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
this has been posted more than 400 times, so it meets its own criteria
for spam.
considerate, at least.
What's wrong with:
Expires: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:02:01 GMT
Message-ID: <spam-faq.20240107000201$a1b7@news.killfile.org>
Sun, 7 Jan 2024 05:07:37 +0100 immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
1/7/24 01:02, Tim Skirvin wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
IMO outdated FAQs should also be considered a form of spam. Surely this
has been posted more than 400 times, so it meets its own criteria for spam.
Someone should email the author to see if the email given is still valid and >whether he considers the FAQ still current. I'm not interested enough to do >it myself.
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
Sun, 7 Jan 2024 05:07:37 +0100 immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
1/7/24 01:02, Tim Skirvin wrote:
Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
IMO outdated FAQs should also be considered a form of spam. Surely
this has been posted more than 400 times, so it meets its own
criteria for spam.
Someone should email the author to see if the email given is still
valid and whether he considers the FAQ still current. I'm not
interested enough to do it myself.
How does that work?
Dear skirv,
The seamus sockpuppet collective has declared your FAQ to be outdated
and therefore a form of spam.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 226:52:15 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,318,701 |