Re: Quick opinion poll regarding Bass' multiple "PR" posts

[Robert L Bass <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'm sure there are some real Alarm Pro's here, but
> it's too hard to find any useful information in all this
> crap anymore.

As long as every on-topic message is followed up with a ton of filth that will
be the case.

> SPAM: To indiscriminately send unsolicited, unwanted, irrelevant, or
> inappropriate messages, especially commercial advertising in mass
> quantities.

Sorry, but that is not the accepted definition of spam.  For your edification I
will quote the most widely accepted and enforced definition.  The following is
taken from "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines", a document that
is widely published on the WWW and frequently posted in various newsgroups.

"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
lends 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
detemine 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.misc). 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
    * "What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes
    * "What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti
    * "FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr.
    * "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al
    * "Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes
    * "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
    * Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
    * Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's Spam"
(Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog" (Krol), "Usenet
Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
    * "Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin

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."

> It's not how many times you send something to one person,
> it's What you send when it is not asked for in the first place...

On the contrary, it is not what you send or whether it was requested.  It is how
many times it is posted and in how many newsgroups.  You are confusing UCE
(unsolicited commercial email) with usenet spam.  The two are not the same.

> I don't think anyone asked for those lists of products.

No one asked for your post.  Does that make it spam?

> Most of the responses I've read to legitimate questions here
> have been dribble about each other and how much he or
> she knows about who or what.

You'll need to adress that complaint to the IB.

> I will not waste any more time here, I will not return.

Tchau.

> Thanks for those that posted useful information, but I just
> can't tell the good from the bad here anymore.

Oh, that's easy.  Every time someone responds to an on-topic post with an
unprovoked, personal attack, consider the post useless.

> "All I really need to know about how to live and what
> to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten."

Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand
pile at school.
These are the things I learned:

    * Share everything.
    * Play fair.
    * Don't hit people.
    * Put things back where you found them.
    * Clean up your own mess.
    * Don't take things that aren't yours.
    * Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
    * Wash your hands before you eat.
    * Flush.
    * Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
    * Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and
sing and dance and play and work every day some.
    * Take a nap every afternoon.
    * When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick
together.
    * Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the
roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we
are all like that.
    * Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the
Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
    * And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned -
the biggest word of all - LOOK.


--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.