FAQs For New Readers/Posters/Proponents
KalElFan
Well, I'd hoped to get these posted today, but it'll probably slip into
later tomorrow. I thought I'd set up this thread today so anyone
wanting to killfile it can do so. I'll be posting two FAQs here:
1. FAQ For New Readers/Posters (Usenet)
2. FAQ For New Readers/Posters/Proponents (news.groups)
The first is for Usenet newbies and contains three sections:
Usenet Basics, Common Mistakes, and Other Questions. It'll
be about 250-300 lines. I don't propose to post this FAQ here
regularly, but rather to have the second FAQ refer to the URL
where it can be found. I'll also offer it to news.announce.newusers
and news.announce.newgroups. Although this kind of FAQ
material is typically not posted to the latter, or here, I think
at least some of the problems in this group are due to newbies
not understanding the basics of Usenet. You can get proponents
and participants coming in from mailing lists for example, or
complete newbies attracted by a particular new group proposal.
This FAQ has been written with them in mind.
The second FAQ will be specifically for this group and will contain
four sections: About news.groups, The Consensus Process, A
news.groups Survival Guide, and Fast Track. I'm hoping it'll also
be in the 250-300 line range, and I propose to post it on a weekly
basis.
Some of the material used in these FAQs is from FAQ and other
material I've previously written. I haven't consulted with Russ or
anyone on these FAQs, for a couple of reasons. The first is that
they're ultimately my FAQs, and I simply wanted to post my best
shot. I'm open to constructive suggestions for change in this
thread or via e-mail.
The second is that the FAQs seek to "reconcile," if you will,
what I see as the two different worlds that collide here. You
have the veterans who I think have great difficulty identifying with
the newbies. Veterans obviously know much more. A few of them
may think they know it all, and can often let that come through
in their posts. On the other hand, the newbies to Usenet and/or
news.groups come in here with a much different perspective,
often a broader user perspective that ends up viewing this place
with great disdain after it's all over. They have different expectations
than the news.groups veterans do, and typically better knowledge
of the subject matter of their proposals.
So I believe that the positions of both sides need to be reflected
in the FAQs, especially the second one, and I've tried to give it that
balance based on the experience I've had here. In doing the actual
writing though, I wanted to be as objective as possible and keep
an arm's length from both sides. At the very least, no one will be
able to credibly say that I've been influenced by Russ or David
Lawrence when I present what I think is their side or "the system's"
side, nor will they be able to credibly say that on Fast Track I'm
a mouthpiece for a Cabal of Barbarians at the Gate bent on
throwing the system into chaos.
(By the way, the Fast Track section of the second FAQ will be
a general overview of the idea behind it, not the specifics of what
I'm going to be proposing. As I mentioned in another thread, the
basic principles of it will be posted later this week, and then each
module will be posted starting hopefully within a week after that.)
So I hope to have the FAQs posted here in this thread by the
end of tomorrow. Again, comments are welcome in the thread
or via e-mail.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Kate Wrightson
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>(By the way, the Fast Track section of the second FAQ will be
>a general overview of the idea behind it, not the specifics of what
>I'm going to be proposing. As I mentioned in another thread, the
>basic principles of it will be posted later this week, and then each
>module will be posted starting hopefully within a week after that.)
*PLEASE* don't put details of a proposed change (that probably won't
happen) into a document intended to help new proponents.
Imagine the confusion. Do you plan to hang around to explain to confused
newbies that they can't use this nifty Fast Track thingy that they read
about in a FAQ for proponents?
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Just another psycho bitch elf maiden, let loose on an unsuspecting USENET.
Please do not mail me copies of material posted to newsgroups.
KalElFan
In article <714b3n$2...@eyrie.org>, ka...@eyrie.org (Kate Wrightson)
writes:
>*PLEASE* don't put details of a proposed change (that probably
>won't happen) into a document intended to help new proponents.
It'll be clear that Fast Track doesn't yet exist.
And now a note to those breathlessly waiting for these. Sorry about
the delay. The first FAQ is 100% ready to go, the second about
90% and barring a major problem they'll both be posted later this
evening. However, they'll be longer than the 300 lines, in fact the first
is 435 lines and the second will probably be about that too. Killfile
the thread if you like.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Joshua Kramer
> 1.1.4 How Many Newsgroups Are There?
> The number is growing all the time. As of late 1998 there were about
> 10,000. Not all news servers carry all groups though.
This is complete BS. I see 37162 groups, and my current server
dosen't even carry any of the recent flood of big-8 or any of the
alt.----00--- groups
> This FAQ is Copyright (c) 1998 the author
This FAQ is also totally off topic for news.groups. Followups directed
appropriatly.
--
"Please note, that Joshua Kramer is a student at Swarthmore and not
a network administrator as his tone and language implies. He is not
speaking as a representative of the Swarthmore network administrative
staff." -Mike Martin (mike...@swbell.net)
"Thanks for clearing that up."
-Joshua Kramer
Jay Denebeim
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>1.1.2 Why "Newsgroups" and "News Servers"?
>Good question, because those names are somewhat misleading these
>days. You're much more likely to find discussion and opinion on
>Usenet, rather than straight news. But back in the old days (the
>early 1980s are the "old days" in this case), Usenet was mainly the
>domain of academics. The posting of news and research on various
>topics led to the terms "Newsgroups" and "News Servers" being used,
>and they've remained in use.
I've got a problem with this. Actually, it depends on where you look.
There's just as many serious groups as ever, and they've still got
tons of traffic. Granted, there's more rec groups nowadays, but
that's hardly all there is to news.
>Basically, Usenet is one part of the Internet.
That's not necessarily true. Usenet does use the internet for
transport most places, but it really is its own thing. You can UUCP
usenet, and in fact there were still places doing this last time I
checked.
>2.3 Posting Lines Greater Than 70 Characters
>For your post to be easily readable, you need to cut off each line at
>70 characters. If your software won't do this automatically, count
>about 65 characters (to be conservative) across your first line, and
>then enter hard carriage returns on subsequent lines to make sure
>that no other lines extend beyond that.
Well, the 65/70 line rule is mostly because of replies. Almost
everyone can read 80.
>AFAIK = As Far As I'm Concerned
as far as I know
(AFAIC is as far as I'm concerned, you do see both)
>FWIW = For What It's Worth
for whatever it's worth
>IIRC = If I Remember Correctly
If I recall correctly
>(ii) Try to remain civil. The vast, vast majority of participants on
>Usenet do not flame at all, and fewer still are quick to flame.
ROFLMAO
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
KalElFan
FAQ For New Readers/Posters (Usenet)
[Last Revised October 29, 1998]
This FAQ may be posted periodically to certain Usenet newsgroups, as
well as certain web sites. Details will appear in subsequent updates
of this FAQ. Opinions expressed herein are those of the author. This
FAQ may be freely quoted from, reprinted and/or distributed on a not-
for-profit basis, provided the permission notice at the end of the
FAQ is included.
This FAQ is divided into three sections: USENET BASICS, which is a
crash course on getting started with Usenet; COMMON MISTAKES, which
can help you avoid the pitfalls many new users trip up on; and OTHER
QUESTIONS, which covers a variety of topics. The Detailed Table of
Contents follows, and then the material proper.
1. USENET BASICS
1.1 Definitions and Organization
1.1.1 What Is Usenet?
1.1.2 Why "Newsgroups" and "News Servers"?
1.1.3 How Do Newsgroup Names Work?
1.1.4 How Many Newsgroups Are There?
1.1.5 What Categories of Newsgroups Are There?
1.2 Getting On Usenet
1.2.1 How Do I Get Access?
1.2.2 So All I Need Is An ISP?
1.2.3 Do Newsreader Features Vary?
1.2.4 What's the Best Newsreader and Where Can I Get It?
1.3 Can I Assume That...
1.3.1 Usenet Is Intangible?
1.3.2 Usenet Is Instantaneous?
1.3.3 Usenet Is Free?
1.3.4 Usenet Is Beyond Law or Regulation?
1.3.5 Someone's "In Charge" Here?
2. COMMON MISTAKES
...2.1 Not Reading Before Posting
...2.2 Making Multiple Postings of One Post
...2.3 Posting Lines Greater Than 70 Characters
...2.4 Shouting and Other Bad Netiquette
...2.5 Quoting Too Extensively
...2.6 Answering Spams and Trolls
...2.7 Not Staying On-Topic
3. OTHER QUESTIONS
3.1 How Many People Read Usenet, and Who Are They
3.2 How Do I Sift Through All These Newsgroups?
3.3 What Do All These Acronyms Mean?
3.4 What Do All These Symbols Mean?
3.5 How Should I Deal With Flamers and the Like?
3.6 Where Can I Get Other Information??
1. USENET BASICS
1.1 Definitions and Organization
1.1.1 What Is Usenet?
Think of it as a gigantic online bulletin board that's divided into
thousands of "newsgroups" covering a wide range of topics -- computer
games, cooking, politics, sex, soccer, Star Trek... you name it.
Now here's an important conceptual leap, critical to understanding
Usenet: the gigantic online bulletin board is duplicated on not just
one or two computers, but on tens of thousands of computers around
the world. Those tens of thousands of computers -- each one of them
called a "news server" -- are part of a network.
In total, millions of people around the world are connected to the
various news servers. They use their connection to read and in many
cases post to the newsgroups they're interested in. Posts work their
way through the network to the other news servers around the world.
1.1.2 Why "Newsgroups" and "News Servers"?
Good question, because those names are somewhat misleading these
days. You're much more likely to find discussion and opinion on
Usenet, rather than straight news. But back in the old days (the
early 1980s are the "old days" in this case), Usenet was mainly the
domain of academics. The posting of news and research on various
topics led to the terms "Newsgroups" and "News Servers" being used,
and they've remained in use.
1.1.3 How Do Newsgroup Names Work?
Newsgroup names are typically a series of words or abbreviations
separated by periods, for example rec.arts.sf.tv is a newsgroup
devoted to the discussion of speculative fiction (science fiction and
fantasy) on television.
1.1.4 How Many Newsgroups Are There?
The number is growing all the time. As of late 1998 there were about
10,000. Not all news servers carry all groups though.
1.1.5 What Categories of Newsgroups Are There?
Newsgroups are organized into different hierarchies. The "standard"
top-level hierarchies or "Big 8" newsgroups start with one of the
following eight prefixes: comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci,
soc, and talk. These hierarchies are for worldwide newsgroups, cover
a very wide range of topics, and tend to get the widest propagation
of messages.
The "alt" hierarchy contains the largest number of groups, and is
also worldwide. However, fewer news servers carry the alt hierarchy
than the Big 8. Many other regional and specialized hierarchies also
exist, for example "us" for the United States and "biz" for business.
Newsgroups are also described as being unmoderated or moderated. The
latter type has posts approved or rejected by a moderator, moderators
and/or an automated process referred to as robomoderation.
1.2 Getting On Usenet
1.2.1 How Do I Get Access?
Well, you may already have it depending how you arrived at this FAQ.
Basically, Usenet is one part of the Internet. If you have access to
other parts of the Internet, like the World Wide Web, then you
probably have access to Usenet. Most people get Internet access
through an Internet Service Provider, or "ISP". For example, America
Online and Netcom are Internet Service Providers. They charge users a
fee for this access, as well as in some cases their own private, non-
internet content. Educational institutions can also be thought of as
an ISP to their students and staff; likewise government or companies
to their employees.
Once you set up an account with an ISP, typically choosing a user
name and password, you can then use that account to access your ISP's
news server. Remember, Usenet exists in a physical sense on the tens
of thousands of news servers that are part of the network. AOL
subscribers get access to AOL's news server, students get access to
their educational institution's news server, and so on.
1.2.2 So All I Need Is An ISP?
Well, not quite. In addition to hardware (computer, monitor, modem or
other telecommunication link) and Internet access, you need software
called a newsreader. Most ISPs provide this software, or at least
potential access to it, as part of the software package you use to
install and set up your account. For example, America Online's
software allows you to set up several user names (or "screen names"),
and use parental control features to prevent some screen names from
using the newsreader part of AOL's software at all.
1.2.3 Do Newsreader Features Vary?
Yes. Some may let you "crosspost" a message to more than one
newsgroup at once, and some may not. Some may let you "killfile" or
screen out posts based on different criteria. For example, they may
screen out posts by certain people, or posts that contain certain
words, so that you won't even see them come up on your newsreader.
1.2.4 What's the Best Newsreader, and Where Can I Get It?
That's a matter of opinion, and beyond the scope of this FAQ. Please
note, though, that with some ISPs it may be difficult or impossible
to use newsreader software other than the software they provide you
with. If it isn't already built in to your ISP software, then the
newsreader needs to be set up or "configured" for it to work right.
That's not something a typical new user can do. It requires certain
identifying information about your ISP's news server, and then you
need to follow a step-by-step procedure to let your newsreader know
that information. The procedure varies depending on your newsreader
software, so consult your manual.
If your ISP won't allow a different newsreader to be used, or makes
it very difficult, and if you're not satisfied with their newsreader
features, then you basically have three choices: just accept it, live
with it but complain to your ISP, or switch to a different ISP.
1.3 Can I Assume That...
1.3.1 Usenet Is Intangible?
No. As describes in 1.1.1, Usenet is a tangible network of tens of
thousands of computers called news servers.
1.3.2 Usenet Is Instantaneous?
No. When messages get posted to Usenet, they typically only take a
matter of minutes to work their way through the system. But for some
news servers it can take hours or even days, especially if a news
server is experiencing technical difficulties or down time.
1.3.3 Usenet Is Free?
No. There are direct hardware, software, and telecommunication costs,
administrative and technical personnel costs, as well as the indirect
opportunity cost associated with the time people spend on Usenet.
Those who participate in Usenet typically pay for it through fees to
their ISP, tuition fees to their educational institutions, and so on.
1.3.4 Usenet Is Beyond Law or Regulation?
No. Usenet is worldwide, and so it isn't subject to the laws of any
single jurisdiction. But remember that Usenet exists in the tangible
sense. Virtually all news servers exist within some jurisdiction, as
do users. If a specific posting is criminal in a jurisdiction, or
actionable in a civil case, then it is not beyond the law.
Specific ISPs may also have Terms of Service that their customers
have to abide by, or risk having their service removed in case of
extreme breaches.
So you should not assume that "anything goes" on Usenet, any more
than it does in e-mail, regular mail, or at your local town hall.
Those who post illegal pyramid schemes, distribute child pornography,
make libelous and defamatory statements, or otherwise "cross the
line" can be prosecuted and/or sued.
1.3.5 Someone's "In Charge" Here?
No. There is no central control mechanism or governing authority over
the entire system. Usenet works through the consensus of users, and
those who own and administer the tens of thousands of news servers in
the network. Some parts of the system are obviously bigger than
others, and in that sense one could argue those parts and their
jurisdictions have more impact on the system. But there is no one
person, group of persons, or organization in charge, nor is any one
server in the system more authoritative than any other. Usenet as a
whole is a functioning anarchy.
2. COMMON MISTAKES
2.1 Not Reading Before Posting
Plunging right into Usenet, and learning from your mistakes, is a bad
way to start for both you and other readers. It's better to read and
learn first. Reading this FAQ is a good first step, and you may also
want to look at the various other documents in news.announce.newusers
or on the web. Remember, though, that those documents typically won't
tell you anything about the specific groups you're interested in. You
should therefore read a newsgroup for a while before you post to it,
to get a flavor for what it's like. Scan at least the post titles
from the last few weeks. Many of your questions may already have been
answered, or you may come across a FAQ for the group.
2.2 Making Multiple Postings of One Post
Remember, posts do not show up instantaneously. Depending on your
system, posts may take many hours to appear. If you think a post
hasn't gone through, don't repost right away, wait at least a day.
2.3 Posting Lines Greater Than 70 Characters
For your post to be easily readable, you need to cut off each line at
70 characters. If your software won't do this automatically, count
about 65 characters (to be conservative) across your first line, and
then enter hard carriage returns on subsequent lines to make sure
that no other lines extend beyond that.
2.4 Shouting and Other Bad Netiquette
Although discussion can and does get heated at times to the point of
"flaming", try to be as civil as possible and avoid bad language
unless you're intending to emphasize something. Similarly, avoid
"shouting" (writing in ALL CAPS LIKE THIS), except for emphasis. If
you feel you must flame, try to do so in as civilized and
entertaining a way as possible. Remember, many people who don't post
to the newsgroup ("lurkers") are out there reading.
2.5 Quoting Too Extensively
Try not to waste "bandwidth" by quoting too extensively from posts
that you're responding to. Quote only the key excerpts necessary to
follow the discussion.
2.6 Answering Spams and Trolls
A major problem on Usenet is "spamming," which is when someone
simultaneously posts something to a large number of newsgroups that
has nothing to do with the topics being discussed in those groups.
Don't do this, and don't respond when you see one because most
software will automatically respond to all those newsgroups, and
you'll just worsen the problem. A "troll" - a post that's
intentionally outrageous and provocative - should also be ignored,
because the poster is simply trying to get attention, "stir things
up" and/or create many responses.
2.7 Not Staying On-Topic
Try to stay on-topic within whatever newsgroup you post to. Some
people post off-topic on purpose, and don't care. There's really
nothing that can be done about this on Usenet, at least not for most
groups, which are unmoderated. In the case of obscene messages that
may be against the terms of service of the poster's organization or
service provider, or pyramid schemes (usually spams) that may be
illegal, some people e-mail a copy of the person's post to the
"Postmaster" at that organization complaining about it. But in
general, you shouldn't respond on the board because it only
perpetuates the offensive thread.
3. OTHER QUESTIONS
3.1 How Many People Read Usenet, and Who Are They?
No way of knowing for sure, but regular readers probably number in
the millions worldwide. Those who read but don't post are referred to
as "lurkers" and estimates vary widely on what the ratio of lurkers
to posters is. Many believe it to be in the 10 lurkers for every 1
poster range.
As to who Usenet posters are, well for starters their e-mail suffixes
can sometimes tell you something about them, for example:
"au" = Australia
"ca" = Canada
"com" = a commercial organization
"edu" = an educational institution
"gov" = a government institution
"nz" = New Zealand
"uk" = United Kingdom.
By reading a group for a while, and can get to know a little bit more
about the people on it and their points of view.
3.2 How Do I Sift Through All These Newsgroups?
You use your newsreader software to subscribe to the ones you're
interested in. The first time you use it, your newsreader may
automatically connect to your news server and download the names of
all current newsgroups, giving you an alphabetical list of names from
which to choose. The newsreader may keep that list up to date by
displaying messages from time to time that there are new newsgroup
names to be downloaded.
Newsreader software may also enable you to search for key words, and
display a list of only those newsgroups names that match. Sometimes a
brief description of the group is given.
When subscribing from a list, you typically just point and click a
few buttons to subscribe. Alternatively, you may be able to enter the
exact newsgroup name if you know it, and subscribe to it that way.
3.3 What Do All These Acronyms Mean?
Acronyms are a Usenet disease that has no cure. You'll come across
far too may to list here. Some are specific to certain newsgroups and
might be explained in the FAQ for the group. You'll also see group
names themselves abbreviated, for example r.a.c.d.u for the group
rec.arts.comics.dc.universe. You may sometimes see r.a.c.* or rac.*
or simply rac* for the rec.arts.comics hierarchy.
Here are a few of the more common acronyms you may come across on
Usenet:
AFAIK = As Far As I'm Concerned
AOL = America Online
BTW = By The Way
FWIW = For What It's Worth
HTH = Hope That Helps
IIRC = If I Remember Correctly
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
IMO = In My Opinion
JMO = Just My Opinion
LOL = Laughing Out Loud
NG = Newsgroup
OTOH = On The Other Hand
ROTFL = Right On The Floor Laughing
ROTFLMAO = Right On The Floor Laughing My A$$ Off
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
3.4 What Do All These Symbols Mean?
Many in cyberspace use "emoticons" and other shorthand to symbolize
emotions and gestures. Here are some of the most common ones:
:-) or :) = Happy face and :-( or :( = Sad face
;-) or ;) = A wink and :-p or :p = Sticking out tongue
<g> = grin, <bg> = big grin, <vbeg> = very big evil grin, etc.
3.5 How Should I Deal With Flamers and the Like?
With experience, you'll develop what for you is the best strategy.
Some people ignore or even "killfile" the flamer, some respond
firmly but politely, some flame back, and some may tailor their
approach depending on who the flamer is. If you're new to Usenet or a
particular group, though, you may be unsure what to do. Here's a
suggested approach:
(i) Try to avoid the common mistakes previously described;
(ii) Try to remain civil. The vast, vast majority of participants on
Usenet do not flame at all, and fewer still are quick to flame. Don't
assume that the poster who has flamed you is representative of Usenet
or any particular Usenet newsgroup. The vast majority don't condone
it, they just may not want to get involved or escalate it;
(iii) On the substance of whatever started the flaming -- assuming
there was any substance -- listen to what others have to say on the
subject. For example, if the flamer has alleged you've made an off-
topic post, and there seems to be a consensus on that, try to abide
by the consensus even though no one can force you to. Again, Usenet
and Usenet groups work by consensus. Don't let a poster who flames
and doesn't practice proper netiquette dissuade you from going along
with an apparent consensus of more reasoned and civil posters; and
(iv) Perhaps most importantly, once you've followed the strategy set
out so far, DON'T BE BULLIED by one or two rude posts or posters.
Don't be bullied into leaving a newsgroup or Usenet. Enjoy discussing
whatever the newsgroup topic is, and don't let anyone stop you.
3.6 Where Can I Get Other Information?
The best place to start your search is news.announce.newusers. There
are several documents there. You may also want to try news.answers,
the FAQs in the specific newsgroups you're interested in, and/or you
might want to do a web search on the topic/keyword you're interested
in.
This FAQ is Copyright (c) 1998 the author, who is herein using the
online name KalE...@aol.com. This FAQ may be freely quoted from,
reprinted and/or distributed on a not-for-profit basis, provided the
following permission notice is included: "Reprinted with permission
from FAQ For New Readers/Posters (Usenet), Copyright (c)
KalE...@aol.com."
KalElFan
FAQ For New Readers/Posters/Proponents (news.groups)
[Last Revised October 29, 1998]
This FAQ may be posted periodically to certain Usenet newsgroups, as
well as certain web sites. Details will appear in subsequent updates
of this FAQ. Opinions expressed herein are those of the author. This
FAQ may be freely quoted from, reprinted and/or distributed on a not-
for-profit basis, provided the permission notice at the end of the
FAQ is included.
This FAQ is divided into four sections: ABOUT NEWS.GROUPS, which
provides some basic information; THE CONSENSUS PROCESS, which sets
out current newsgroup creation and change practices; A NEWS.GROUPS
SURVIVAL GUIDE, which provides more information and advice; and FAST
TRACK, which briefly describes a process that does not yet exist but
which is being worked on. The Detailed Table of Contents follows, and
then the material proper.
1. ABOUT NEWS.GROUPS
1.1 What Is This Place?
1.2 Who's In Charge Here?
1.3 Well Then, What Consensus Exists?
2. THE CONSENSUS PROCESS
2.1 What's The Consensus Process?
2.2 Where Can I Get All the Detailed Info?
3. A NEWS.GROUPS SURVIVAL GUIDE
3.1 I Need a Survival Guide?
3.2 Basic I-Wanna-Know and Angry-Young-User Questions
3.2.1 Who Moderates news.announce.newgroups?
3.2.2 Who Sends Out the Control Messages?
3.2.3 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
3.2.4 So Who Made Tale God?
3.2.5 What If I Wanna Be God?
3.2.6 Do I Smell Big 8 Restraint of Trade Dammit?
3.2.7 Why Don't I Just Send This $#@% Control Message?
3.2.8 But Isn't Changing The Consensus Process Too Difficult?
3.3 Basic Okay-I'll-Work-With-This-Consensus-Process Questions
3.3.1 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
3.3.2 Can I Campaign?
3.3.3 Can I Do Straw Polls?
3.3.4 What About the Trolls In Them There Hills?
3.3.5 Any Absolute No-Nos?
3.3.6 What's Vote Fraud?
3.3.7 Why Can't I Send Out the Ballot?
3.4 Any Other Advice?
4. FAST TRACK
4.1 What's Fast Track?
4.2 Why Is Fast Track Needed?
4.3 Is There a Timetable For Fast Track?
4.4 Who's Supporting Fast Track?
4.5 Will This Be A Competitive Track?
4.6 How Can I Help?
1. ABOUT NEWS.GROUPS
1.1. What Is This Place?
It's one of about ten thousand newsgroups on Usenet. Its main purpose
is the discussion of "Big 8" newsgroup creation, both generally and
for specific newsgroup proposals. The "Big 8" hierarchies are:
comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, and talk.
Please note that discussion in news.groups can often get very heated,
and this is generally not a place for those new to Usenet. New users
should read the FAQ For New Readers/Posters (Usenet), and spend some
time reading news.groups, before jumping in. If you don't understand
some of the terms, issues or answers in this FAQ, for example, it's
probably because you don't have a basic understanding of Usenet. It's
best if you get that understanding first, before reading this FAQ and
participating here.
1.2 Who's In Charge Here?
Usenet has no governing authority. It runs by the consensus of news
administrators and users who participate in it. No one is in charge.
Some news servers may be bigger than others, and have more readers
and posters, but none is supreme or more authoritative than the tens
of thousands of other news servers on the network. The owner of any
given news server, and/or the news administrator running it, may
choose to carry some newsgroups and not others. No one can make that
decision for them.
Again, the most one can say about how Usenet is "run" is that it runs
by the consensus of those who participate in it.
1.3 Well Then, What Consensus Exists?
First of all, with literally tens of thousands of news servers
throughout the world, when we talk about "consensus" there can be
hundreds or even thousands of exceptions. Likewise, on the user side,
we're talking millions of people and therefore thousands of
exceptions no matter what the consensus.
That said, the owners of most major news sites, the vast majority of
news administrators who run news sites, and most users will probably
agree on the following two things when it comes to the Big 8:
a. There needs to be a Consensus Process for creating, renaming,
reorganizing, and removing specific newsgroups. You can't have a
situation where anyone can, for example, create or rename a group on
their own, any time they feel like it. Any news administrator CAN do
that on their own machine, but if tens of thousands of news
administrators all did so on a completely willy-nilly, ad hoc basis,
the system would grind to a halt.
b. The Consensus Process should not necessarily be an easy one,
compared to the alt.* hierarchy for example. Most news administrators
and users view the Big 8 as the more "official" branch of Usenet. Its
roots date back to the beginning of Usenet circa 1980, it's carried
by more news servers around the world, and the propagation of Big 8
messages is higher than it is for other groups. So there's a sense
that the standards for changing the Big 8 need to be higher.
These two points -- that there needs to be a Consensus Process and
that the standards for newsgroup creation and change ought to be
higher for the Big 8 -- are reflected in The Consensus Process that
now exists and which is described in the next section. People may
refer to this process as "the system". "The Consensus Process" is the
term used in this FAQ.
Please note that very, very few people in news.groups, and very few
people on Usenet generally who experience the Consensus Process,
consider it without flaws. Indeed, the process, especially as its
been operating over the past few years, is reviled by many. Even
among those involved in administering the process, there is a desire
to improve it and there are efforts now underway to do that.
2. THE CONSENSUS PROCESS
2.1 What's The Consensus Process?
The Consensus Process that the vast majority of news administrators
have adopted, for Big 8 newsgroups, involves a specific series of
steps that culminate in an online vote. Interested parties can best
follow the process in two newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups and
news.groups. The former is a moderated group where only the most
relevant messages are posted at each stage of the process. The
latter, news.groups (the subject of this FAQ) is where detailed
and often very contentious discussion takes place throughout the
process.
The process has two main stages, the Discussion and the Vote. The
first stage begins when a proponent or proponents suggests a change
of some sort, in a document called a Request For Discussion or RFD.
The RFD is posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other
related Usenet groups or mailing lists whose readers are likely to be
interested or affected. However, all discussion takes place in
news.groups.
As early as three weeks after the discussion begins, the proponent
may call a vote. A votetaker is assigned the task of administering
the Vote phase. Votetakers are members of an organization called the
Usenet Volunteer Votetakers or UVV. The Vote phase begins with a
posting of a Call For Votes (CFV) by the assigned votetaker. The CFV
is posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and perhaps other
newsgroups at the discretion of the votetaker. The CFV contains the
background information on the proposal, taken from the RFD, and very
specific instructions including the specific format that must be used
for a vote to be accepted.
The voting phase lasts about three weeks. With few exceptions, anyone
with Usenet access can vote through their online account. The
standard for passing a proposal is that there must be at least 100
more Yes than No, and at least twice as many Yes as No. So for
example, a vote of 101-99 will not pass because the Yes do not have
twice as many as the No, nor will a vote of 99-0 pass because there
are not 100 more Yes than No. However, a vote of 100-0 would pass, as
would a vote of 300-150.
A few days after the vote ends, the detailed result including the
voter list is posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups and
other affected groups. After a five day waiting period, a control
message is sent out for successful proposals. Unsuccessful proposals
must wait six months before trying again.
2.2 Where Can I Get All the Detailed Info?
A more detailed, step-by-step description of the process, as well as
advice, can be found in several documents periodically posted to
news.announce.newgroups. In particular, look for the following:
(i) How To Create a New Usenet Newsgroup -- this contains a general
overview and guidelines on the process itself;
(ii) How To Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal -- this contains advice
on putting together a persuasive Request For Discussion (RFD); and
(iii) How To Format and Submit a Newsgroup Proposal -- this contains
how-to specifics and a template for the RFD.
Also look for the Draft Guidelines posted to news.groups from time to
time. This document is a summary that covers areas touched on in all
of the above documents.
3. A NEWS.GROUPS SURVIVAL GUIDE
3.1 I Need a Survival Guide?
Unfortunately, you pretty much do. People affected by newsgroup
changes can get pretty passionate about it. Add to that the fact that
people who frequent newsgroups -- news administrators and others
interested in Big 8 newsgroup creation -- can also get passionate
about the topic generally. Add to that a Consensus Process that
includes all discussion in news.groups and a voting system that
allows both Yes and No votes, and you've got a powder keg. On many if
not all proposals, someone puts a match to it and it's best if you
have the knowledge and plan to deal with that. Stand clear, wear your
asbestos suit, bring your own flame-thrower, it's up to you. But just
don't have any illusions about this being a friendly, pleasant
environment. It isn't. Some view it as the cesspool of Usenet, and
remember that some people already view Usenet as a cesspool to start
with. Things may change, but that's the way many view this place
right now.
3.2 Basic I-Wanna-Know and Angry-Young-User Questions
3.2.1 Who Moderates news.announce.newgroups?
The moderator of n.a.n. is David Lawrence, commonly referred to in
news.groups discussions as "tale" because that's in his e-mail
address. Tale has a news administrator background dating back to a
long-established ISP. The day-to-day assistant moderator of
news.announce.newgroups is Russ Allbery, who's the news administrator
for Stanford University.
3.2.2 Who Sends Out the Control Messages?
Tale (David Lawrence) does.
3.2.3 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
Again, Russ Allbery handles the day-to-day moderation duties. He
approves the RFD postings to news.announce.newgroups, for example.
Russ also actively participates in discussions on news.groups, which
can often get quite contentious. Tale prefers to remain above the
fray, and it's better for the system that he does. It's Tale's job to
sign his control messages, which effectively say to tens of thousands
of news administrators: "I'm certifying that this change has gone
through the Consensus Process." It's better if the person doing that
is not just objective, but is perceived to be objective.
3.2.4 So Who Made Tale God?
No one made David Lawrence or Russ Allbery God. They've got thankless
jobs that they kind of just volunteered themselves into years ago. If
they weren't doing it, someone else would have to step up and do it.
Why? Because without someone administering the process, and sending
out newsgroup control messages based on that process, those tens of
thousands of news administrators would have nothing they could trust
as representing the results of the Consensus Process. They would have
to get someone to take tale's place.
3.2.5 What If I Wanna Be God?
Go ahead and try to become one, but be prepared for a lot of work and
in particular a lot of issues you'll need to address. You need to
understand the underlying consensus that exists when it comes to the
Big 8, and that was covered in 1.3 of this FAQ: there needs to be a
Consensus Process, and it should not be too easy to make changes. If
you have a better system, or an improvement to the existing system,
you will have to persuade people that it represents a better
Consensus Process for news administrators and to some extent users.
If you don't build a better Consensus Process, then you're left with
having to convince news administrators to make changes on an ad hoc
basis. Some news administrators may do that for you, for example
carry your group even if it hasn't passed the process. But getting a
few news administrators to do something will still leave you with
tens of thousands of news administrators who haven't, and that will
result in pathetically bad propagation of messages. Basically, only
those who have accounts with a select few ISPs -- the ISPs you've
convinced on an ad hoc basis to do whatever you want-- will be able
to use your new group. You'd be much better off going to alt.config
and proposing an alt.* group, where group creation is far less
difficult.
3.2.6 Do I Smell Big 8 Restraint of Trade Dammit?
No, you're probably just frustrated because you'd like to be God and
change something in the Big 8 on tens of thousands of news servers.
You want to do it now, without investing much time or effort. No one
can do that. If they could, the system would crumble. Imagine a
hundred different pseudo-gods all wanting to create their own version
of, say, a romance novel newsgroup. One wants to call it rec.romance,
another rec.arts.books.romance, another rec.arts.romance.books, yet
another rec.books.romance, and so on. Several others want specific
authors to have their own subgroups within the hierarchy. Others want
to delete existing authors' groups they don't think are worthy.
Now imagine all of these people sending out control messages to tens
of thousands of news administrators, telling them to change the Big
8. One day it looks like this, the next day like that, and the
following day a romance novel reader changes it again to suit him or
her. Chaos, and it's why we have a Consensus Process.
So there is no restraint of trade, and there's no point whining that
there is. Anyone can start their own newsgroup and convince a news
administrator to carry it. Heck, they can start up their own news
server and carry it, or centrally carry and control a bulletin board
on their own web server for that matter. They can even be a pseudo-
God and convince many news servers around the world to accept their
new, improved Consensus Process, but not without putting a huge
amount of work into it.
3.2.7 Why Don't I Just Send This $#@% Control Message?
Go ahead if you must, but just know that:
a. It doesn't work. Regular fixes are sent out and will quickly undo
your terrorism; and
b. You'll be an even bigger loser than most of the losers one runs
across in a place as big as Usenet, because you'll have shown some
ability (i.e., you'll have figured out how to send control messages),
but you'll have misused it.
The same goes for any other Usenet losers who use terror to tear down
or subvert the Consensus Processes that make this place work. So-
called cancelbot or superceding attacks (massive canceling or
superceding of posts by a Usenet terrorist), making frivolous
proposals, habitual trolling (constantly making outrageous posts
just to stir things up), etc., all have one thing in common --
they're destructive. If something constructive isn't your objective,
then it isn't worth squat.
So by all means, work to change things, but do it in a constructive,
not a destructive way. There are many, many problems with Usenet that
need constructive solutions. Many believe the newsgroup creation
system, as it currently works, deserves almost no respect. But the
response to that has to be to build a better system.
3.2.8 But Isn't Changing The Consensus Process Too Difficult?
It's difficult. Too difficult is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing
is impossible, and as mentioned even those who currently administer
the process -- David Lawrence and Russ Allbery -- recognize the need
for change. It's a matter of developing a viable proposal for change.
Section 4 of this FAQ describes a Fast Track process that doesn't yet
exist but that could dramatically improve the current process by
supplementing it.
3.3 Basic Okay-I'll-Work-With-This-Consensus-Process Questions
3.3.1 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
These names, names, names are a major cause of contentious discussion
and even flaming on news.groups. Proponents and supporters of a group
typically like their proposed name, news.groups folk are typically
very concerned about the namespace issue, and so be prepared for
controversy. Even several "precedents" will not save you from irate
posters insisting that the precedent was bad, and therefore your name
is still bad.
Try to keep an open mind on naming, but at the same time don't assume
that a few noisy critics represent a consensus. Don't lash out at all
of news.groups because of a few posters.
3.3.2 Can I Campaign?
Yes, in fact many would say that you must campaign if you hope to win
the vote. Campaigning is best done through e-mail, to your known or
likely supporters. Web sites can also be used, as well as signature
lines in your posts. However, you should ensure that your campaigning
is:
(i) Targeted only at your known or likely supporters. Don't spam
unrelated mailing lists or newsgroups; and
(ii) Clear in stating that only those with Usenet access, and who
intend to at least read the group on occasion, should vote for the
group.
Open campaigning that goes beyond the above may well get a proposal
overturned if it wins, and it will also attract many No votes. But as
long as you campaign within the above, don't be deterred by anyone
who tries to dissuade you. There is no rule against the above, nor
any precedent for overturning a vote because of it.
3.3.3 Can I Do Straw Polls?
Yes. Be prepared for a small fraction of people on news.groups who
may object to e-mail polls, even if they've participated in the
discussion. Straw polls posted to the newsgroup are better, but the
downside is they get a lower response rate. It's up to you, but don't
e-mail people who have shown no potential interest in the proposal.
3.3.4 What About the Trolls In Them There Hills?
You'll run across them in news.groups as you do in any group. Some
are trollish consistently, others only on what for them may be hot
button issues. The main thing is that you shouldn't assume they're
representative of all of news.groups, and you shouldn't lash out at
all of news.groups because of them. If you lash out at trolls, be
prepared for a few more to enter the fray. Again, don't assume they
reflect any consensus. It's just normal news.group noise. Ideally,
you should try to ignore or deflect their posts.
3.3.5 Any Absolute No-Nos?
Vote fraud is really the only absolute no-no. Excessive campaigning,
as previously described, is a gray area and should be avoided.
3.3.6 What's Vote Fraud?
Some trolls may accuse you of it lightly or out of ignorance, but
it's basically what common sense and common morality would tell you
is fraud. Duplicate voting under different accounts, vote buying or
threats, stacking the vote with people who have no interest in your
group, and providing people with pre-filled ballots are considered
vote fraud.
3.3.7 Why Can't I Send Out the Ballot?
Well, this is a good question. Many feel it's an artificial way of
keeping the Yes support down. Some will even cite that as a valid
reason -- that people should have to go through a more difficult
process to vote than just having the proponent send them a ballot.
Whatever the reason, not voting in the prescribed manner is viewed as
vote fraud. The prescribed manner means the voter cutting the ballot
from the posted CFV, or e-mailing the votetaker for a copy of the
CFV. Discovery of widespread distribution of the CFV by proponents or
supporters would likely get a Yes-won vote overturned.
3.4 Any Other Advice?
Try to be as prepared as possible before you submit your RFD. The
various documents mentioned previously will help, but you need to
also be prepared with your support. Ideally, you should have or at
least be certain of more than 100 Yes votes right from the start,
because 100 is the absolute minimum you'll need.
When you get to news.groups, be prepared for confrontation with those
who oppose your group. They may be people from outside news.groups
who are interested in your subject, or people within news.groups. Few
proposals sail through unopposed, no matter how well thought out they
are. Most proposals generate at least 30-50 No votes, which means you
need 150 Yes to have a good chance of passing the group. Since you
need two Yes votes for every one No once you get beyond the 200-100
threshold, be especially wary of generating a massive No vote. If you
get contentious, try to make a point that you're getting contentious
with only a few people and not everyone in news.groups, or everyone
who may hold a reasonable opinion.
4. FAST TRACK
4.1 What's Fast Track?
Fast Track is a second track process that does not yet exist, but
which is being worked on. It wouldn't replace the existing Consensus
Process, certainly not initially. It would supplement it and be
compatible with it. Proponents could choose to take the Fast Track
if their proposal qualifies for it, or go with the existing Consensus
Process if they prefer that.
4.2 Why Is Fast Track Needed?
It would be a quicker and hopefully simpler track than the current
Consensus Process. Perhaps even more importantly, it would eliminate
much of the animosity and resentment that the current process breeds.
4.3 Is There a Timetable For Fast Track?
No, but the sooner the better. The first half of 1999 may be a
reasonable target to start implementing at least some parts of it.
4.4 Who's Supporting Fast Track?
Well, the concept apparently has widespread acceptance. It's just
been a question of someone actually working to put together a viable
proposal that addresses some of the perceived problems. The author of
this FAQ has volunteered to do that work, because that's just the
kind of guy he is... stupid. :-)
4.5 Will This Be A Competitive Track?
Hopefully not. The ideal scenario is that it become an add-on to the
existing system. If it's competitive, it will have to at least have a
fair degree of compatibility with the existing system, and it'll be a
more difficult and longer process selling it.
4.6 How Can I Help?
E-mail me (KalE...@aol.com) with any comments or suggestions, and
watch for postings on this in the near future. If you support it, be
prepared to post that support in the discussion. This is especially
true of news.groups non-regulars, disillusioned former regulars and
proponents/supporters. Although one hopes everyone will keep an open
mind about Fast Track, there may well be a few noisy critics wedded
to the status quo. A Fast Track will never satisfy them, or at least
a Fast Track that did satisfy them would be pointless. The idea of
Fast Track is to smooth the process for all parties involved, the
ordinary users included.
This FAQ is Copyright (c) 1998 the author, who is herein using the
online name KalE...@aol.com. This FAQ may be freely quoted from,
reprinted and/or distributed on a not-for-profit basis, provided the
following permission notice is included: "Reprinted with permission
from FAQ For New Readers/Posters (news.groups), Copyright (c)
KalE...@aol.com."
Jon Bell
>
>[Last Revised October 29, 1998]
>
>This FAQ may be posted periodically to certain Usenet newsgroups, as
>well as certain web sites.
This material would be very welcome in news.newusers.questions. It
probably exceeds our normal length restriction, but we make an exception
for FAQs that have been approved for news.answers and cross-posted from
there. When you get any kinks ironed out of this, I encourage you to
submit it to the news.answers team for their approval, and then cross-post
it to n.n.q. Or you can break it down into shorter pieces that do meet
our length restriction (200 lines or 10000 characters).
>3.6 Where Can I Get Other Information?
>The best place to start your search is news.announce.newusers. There
>are several documents there. You may also want to try news.answers,
>the FAQs in the specific newsgroups you're interested in, and/or you
>might want to do a web search on the topic/keyword you're interested
>in.
And don't forget news.newusers.questions and its Web site (see my sig).
:-)
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
[ Information about newsgroups for beginners: ]
[ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/ ]
Boris Schaefer
| 1.1.4 How Many Newsgroups Are There?
| The number is growing all the time. As of late 1998 there were about
| 10,000. Not all news servers carry all groups though.
This is wrong. Many servers carry something like 35000 groups.
<snip>
| AFAIK = As Far As I'm Concerned
ummm, no. AFAIK = As Far As I Know.
| 3.6 Where Can I Get Other Information?
| The best place to start your search is news.announce.newusers. There
| are several documents there. You may also want to try news.answers,
| the FAQs in the specific newsgroups you're interested in, and/or you
| might want to do a web search on the topic/keyword you're interested
| in.
You might want to add news.newusers.questions.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
-- Adlai Stevenson
Boris Schaefer
| So for example, a vote of 101-99 will not pass because the Yes do
| not have twice as many as the No,
You might want to use another example (like 201-101), because your
example also wouldn't pass because of the 100 more YES than NO rule.
<snip>
| 3.2.7 Why Don't I Just Send This $#@% Control Message?
| Go ahead if you must, but just know that:
|
| a. It doesn't work. Regular fixes are sent out and will quickly undo
| your terrorism; and
and your newgroup, rmgroup or changegroup messages will probably be
rejected, because they are not from Tale.
<snip>
| The same goes for any other Usenet losers who use terror to tear down
| or subvert the Consensus Processes that make this place work. So-
| called cancelbot or superceding attacks (massive canceling or
| superceding of posts by a Usenet terrorist), making frivolous
Just remember, kids: There is no 'c' in 'supersede'.
-- The Gnus Newsreader manual
<snip>
All in all, I say `Nice Work'.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
Things are more like they used to be than they are now.
KalElFan
Thanks to all those who posted comments and the one or two
e-mail I received as well. I've incorporated or addressed just about
all of the points/corrections in some way.
The revised news.groups FAQ is at:
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan/private/admin/faqs/ngroups.html
The revised Usenet FAQ is at:
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan/private/admin/faqs/usenet.html
I plan to post the news.groups FAQ here weekly starting this week.
It has the web address of the Usenet FAQ, which I don't plan to
post here.
Again thanks for the comments.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <71e0qu$438$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, eri...@databasix.com
(Belinda) writes:
>This is incorrect. Topicality or lack thereof does not enter into the
>definition of spam.
This was the one comment that I wasn't going to make any change
on, but I ended up doing a paragraph or two because it is something
that comes up. Basically, I've said that Usenet and cyberspace
have some hardliners when it comes to spam, but that for most
people the topical context is relevant. You'd have to persuade me
otherwise before I'd go beyond that. I don't want to get into a long
discussion on it here, but basically consider this Superman example:
Someone wants to discuss "favorite" Superman incarnations, whether
it be in comics (e.g., the Curt Swan-drawn version), TV (e.g., George
Reeves or Dean Cain or the current Tim Daly-voiced animated series),
Movies (e.g., Chris Reeve or Kirk Alyn), and so on. Such a post could
be made to:
alt.animation.warner-bros, alt.comics.superman, alt.tv.lois-n-clark,
rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rec.arts.comics.other-media,
rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.sf.movies, rec.arts.sf.superman
and arguably several other groups. Say there are 10 in total for the
sake of argument.
Now assume a sex-related web site posts to the same 10 groups.
I contend that the vast majority of people on Usenet would consider
the sex-related web site post spam, but not the Superman-related
post. To label both spam would dilute the meaning of the term to
the point of rendering it useless. I think topicality *must* be *part*
of the definition.
>Nice job on the rest of it.
Thanks
>But why are we discussing it here in news.groups?
The first post in the thread sets out the rationale, i.e. why the lack
of basic knowledge impacts the group. That said, I'm proposing to
reference the basic Usenet FAQ in the news.groups FAQ, so I
don't plan to post it here unless there's substantial demand to do
so. (The argument for doing so would be that newbies, including
many who end up here for whatever reason, don't go to the various
new user material even though you'd ideally like them to. By having
a FAQ here we might save the group the trouble that can cause.)
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <71jflo$4sg$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>,
eri...@databasix.com (Belinda) writes:
>But that's just plain wrong. Spam is based on numbers, not on
>content. All the widely accepted, oft-referred to FAQS define it
>as such. Third party cancellation standards are based on the
>numerical definition of spam. AUPS are written around it.
>
>For example, see the Current Spam Thresholds and Guidelines,
>maintained by Tim Skirvin at:
>
>http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
>
>or the Net Abuse FAQ, at:
>
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.1
>
>You can not single-handedly redefine spam. You should not
>even try. You will be contributing to the clueless quotient of
>newbies and to the irritation level of ISPs who will have to
>deal with their misinformed complaints.
Belinda, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact
that you didn't address my example, you simply assert that
a definition of spam has somehow become gospel despite the
fact that it has a fundamental flaw. I reject that assertion, and
I've given you a specific example illustrating why. If you want
to argue that other people's definitions are correct just because
they're correct, then that's hardly helpful. I've seen spam
definitions that say it's simply unsolicited e-mail, or unsolicited
bulk e-mail, and that don't even contemplate the fact that a
Usenet newsgroup can be spammed. Does that mean they're
right, and the Usenet people are wrong to even use the term?
I was disappointed in Tim's dungeon when I visited it, and now
I guess I'm disappointed in his definition of spam if it's as you
say it is. See, I like the word spam, and I suspect thousands,
heck millions of people do. I like to be able to apply it to all
that junk e-mail I get. And yes, volume has something to do
with it. If I post a Superman comic sale message on 10,000
newsgroups, that's spam, just like the "For a good time
click http://www.ooh-spam-me-baby.com" would be. But if a
Superman fan I know who has a question e-mails me and a
few other fans hoping one of us has the answer, sorry but he
ain't a spammer and I don't care how many techie web sites
say he is.
If some ISPs want to have a number threshold of X number
of groups triggers their spam alert/block or expert system, then
fine I don't have a problem with that. It's like a bank's system
may highlight large transactions, or too frequent transactions,
as a fraud alert. But what you're effectively saying is that
whatever gets flagged automatically becomes the test that
proves the crime, and you can't do that. As I see it, it's *you*
and any others you cite who are trying to set an inappropriate
definition here. Ten on-topic Superman posts to ten groups
where the Superman post is on-topic cannot be spam, other-
wise the term is useless except to a few who might blindly
follow this numbers-are-everything approach. If they called
it "Threshold Y" or some other code-name for that purpose,
then fine, but they can't co-opt a term that's found its way
into common usage and that people *do* identify in qualitative,
non-numerical terms *as_well_as* numerical ones.
(BTW, we seem to have another one of those forgery attacks,
I noticed an alt.gothic cross-post with my name on it just
now. That would be a "forged spam" I guess...)
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Kathy Pascoe
>
> In article <71jflo$4sg$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>,
> eri...@databasix.com (Belinda) writes:
>
> >You can not single-handedly redefine spam. You should not
> >even try. You will be contributing to the clueless quotient of
> >newbies and to the irritation level of ISPs who will have to
> >deal with their misinformed complaints.
>
> Belinda, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact
> that you didn't address my example, you simply assert that
> a definition of spam has somehow become gospel despite the
> fact that it has a fundamental flaw.
Fundamental flaw or not, Belinda is correct. Defining spam in terms
of usenet abuse is all about the number of times something is posted,
not the extent to which a posting is off-topic for a particular group.
While it's possible that an off-topic posting was also spammed, it's
not a given.
Please take Belinda's very good advice and do not muddy the waters. If
you mean off-topic posting, say so. If you mean spammed postings, say
so. Do not equate off-topic and spam, because you will simply
contribute to confusing people.
> Ten on-topic Superman posts to ten groups where the Superman post is
> on-topic cannot be spam, otherwise the term is useless except to a few
> who might blindly follow this numbers-are-everything approach.
If those ten posts are the same post sent separately to each group,
they are indeed spam. Specifically, postings with a Breidbart Index
(the sum of the square roots of all the groups to which an article was
posted) of 10. Calculations of BI are used in determining whether posts
can be spam cancelled. A BI of 10 wouldn't result in cancellations, but
would result in the articles being filtered out of many newsfeeds.
If you're talking about a ten-group crosspost (hopefully with followups
set to a single group or two), that isn't spam. Many news servers will
filter out such postings, however, because of restrictions on the number
of groups to which crossposts can be made.
If you have further questions about spam, you should ask them in
<news:news.admin.net-abuse.policy> (moderated, usually high signal:
noise ratio) or <news:news.admin.net-abuse.usenet> (unmoderated).
> If they called it "Threshold Y" or some other code-name for that
> purpose, then fine, but they can't co-opt a term that's found its way
> into common usage and that people *do* identify in qualitative,
> non-numerical terms *as_well_as* numerical ones.
But what you seem not to understand is that the people who identify
'spam' as being off-topic postings have misunderstood the use of the
term in Usenet. Spam is numerical. Off-topic postings are not
necessarily numerical.
You would do a favor to new users reading your FAQ if you introduce the
terminology the way news and mail administrators have come to use them.
Having a common understanding of terms is a very useful thing.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ ka...@scconsult.com (home)
Kathy Pascoe
>
> It's one of about ten thousand newsgroups on Usenet.
The revised language on your website says 35K, but I'd suggest you
don't use specific numbers. Everyone's view of the total number of
available newsgroups varies based on his/her server and the groups on
it. Better language might be 'one of the many thousands of newsgroups'.
(I didn't check the rest of the website, so if you've already included
some of the below, my apologies).
> New users should read the FAQ For New Readers/Posters (Usenet), and
> spend some time reading news.groups, before jumping in.
Referring people to news.announce.newusers and news.newusers.questions
would be good. And the nnq web site at
<http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/6882/>.
> 2.2 Where Can I Get All the Detailed Info?
> Also look for the Draft Guidelines posted to news.groups from time to
> time. This document is a summary that covers areas touched on in all
> of the above documents.
Instead (Kate/Russ, is this right?):
'A revised Guidelines document and its Companion are being prepared for
periodic posting to <news:news.announce.newgroups>. The most recent
draft of the Guidelines, and the discussion leading to its development,
may be found at Dejanews (<http://www.dejanews.com/>).'
> 3.1 I Need a Survival Guide?
> But just don't have any illusions about this being a friendly,
> pleasant environment. It isn't. Some view it as the cesspool of
> Usenet, and remember that some people already view Usenet as a
> cesspool to start with. Things may change, but that's the way many
> view this place right now.
I understand that you're ticked off, but seriously, many groups wander
in and out of here with nary a peep of bad feelings. 'Tis your FAQ
and all, but you might more honestly say 'this author views' rather
than 'many view'.
> 3.2.3 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
> Tale prefers to remain above the fray, and it's better for the system
> that he does.
I suspect there are more than a few people who would disagree with the
latter part of this sentence, and would very much like to see tale
posting in news.groups. Again, 'some think' before 'it's better' may
be good.
Also, I don't know if he prefers to remain above the fray, has no time
to be involved in the fray, or what. Unless he's told you his
preferences, you may wish to avoid stating them for him.
> 3.2.7 Why Don't I Just Send This $#@% Control Message?
> Go ahead if you must, but just know that:
>
> a. It doesn't work. Regular fixes are sent out and will quickly undo
> your terrorism; and
It's only 'terrorism' if a control message for a Big 8 group is sent as
if from tale or some other authority figure (forged). I could send a
single control message for news.admin.net-abuse.bite-me and it wouldn't
be terrorism. The group wouldn't get very far since tale would rmgroup
it, because it didn't go through the standard process (or because smart
news admins only accept PGP-authenticated Big 8 messages from tale).
But it's not terrorism; it's just a probable waste of my time.
> b. You'll be an even bigger loser than most of the losers one runs
> across in a place as big as Usenet, because you'll have shown some
> ability (i.e., you'll have figured out how to send control messages),
> but you'll have misused it.
Again, the 'loser' bit is too harsh. It would be reasonable for me to
send my own newgroup message for an alt.* group, after discussion in
alt.config.
You know, you really should rename this document 'Intro to Big 8
Newsgroup Creation' or something similar.
> 3.2.8 But Isn't Changing The Consensus Process Too Difficult?
> Section 4 of this FAQ describes a Fast Track process that doesn't yet
> exist but that could dramatically improve the current process by
> supplementing it.
And I agree with what Kate posted last week, that you shouldn't include
non-standard processes in a FAQ about a well established process. Go
ahead and start a thread about your fast track proposal. If lots of
people like it and offer constructive suggestions, ship a revised
proposal to tale. That's the only way such a change will be
implemented. Since it could take months, if ever, to get such a
change agreed to, you're wasting space in this document by including
fast track within it.
> 3.3.1 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
> These names, names, names are a major cause of contentious discussion
> and even flaming on news.groups. Proponents and supporters of a group
> typically like their proposed name, news.groups folk are typically
> very concerned about the namespace issue
Would you care to supply an overview of your perceptions of the
'namespace issue' here?
> 3.3.2 Can I Campaign?
> Yes, in fact many would say that you must campaign if you hope to win
> the vote. Campaigning is best done through e-mail, to your known or
> likely supporters. Web sites can also be used, as well as signature
> lines in your posts.
This section is problematic, since undisclosed email and website
publicity about the CFV is on that edge of inappropriate campaigning,
at least in my opinion. Better to encourage .sigvertising while
participating in related groups.
> (ii) Clear in stating that only those with Usenet access, and who
> intend to at least read the group on occasion, should vote for the
> group.
But this is very good.
> 3.3.3 Can I Do Straw Polls?
> Yes. Be prepared for a small fraction of people on news.groups who
> may object to e-mail polls, even if they've participated in the
> discussion. Straw polls posted to the newsgroup are better, but the
> downside is they get a lower response rate. It's up to you, but don't
> e-mail people who have shown no potential interest in the proposal.
This section won't make sense to new readers. Straw polls about what?
Whether the RFD should even be posted to nan? That should have been
worked out in the affected groups before the proponents came forward.
Which of six proposed names should be picked and why? Normally there
aren't that many good options. If you're going to talk about straw
polls, explain why you're doing so.
And the campaigning section should go after the straw polls section.
> 3.3.6 What's Vote Fraud?
> Some trolls may accuse you of it lightly or out of ignorance, but
> it's basically what common sense and common morality would tell you
> is fraud. Duplicate voting under different accounts, vote buying or
> threats, stacking the vote with people who have no interest in your
> group, and providing people with pre-filled ballots are considered
> vote fraud.
That's very good.
>
> 3.3.7 Why Can't I Send Out the Ballot?
> Well, this is a good question. Many feel it's an artificial way of
> keeping the Yes support down.
What?
> 3.4 Any Other Advice?
> Try to be as prepared as possible before you submit your RFD. The
> various documents mentioned previously will help, but you need to
> also be prepared with your support. Ideally, you should have or at
> least be certain of more than 100 Yes votes right from the start,
> because 100 is the absolute minimum you'll need.
You should put this first. That may help dissuade those coming in with
a field of dreams argument.
> When you get to news.groups, be prepared for confrontation with those
> who oppose your group. They may be people from outside news.groups
> who are interested in your subject, or people within news.groups. Few
> proposals sail through unopposed, no matter how well thought out they
> are.
'... because those with a different perspective may bring up ideas the
proponents hadn't thought of. Listening to constructive criticism with
an open mind should result in a more successful process.' It's not
because people want new proposals to fail, at least not in my opinion.
> Most proposals generate at least 30-50 No votes, which means you
> need 150 Yes to have a good chance of passing the group. Since you
> need two Yes votes for every one No once you get beyond the 200-100
> threshold, be especially wary of generating a massive No vote. If you
> get contentious, try to make a point that you're getting contentious
> with only a few people and not everyone in news.groups, or everyone
> who may hold a reasonable opinion.
This is kinda adversarial, and has that 'what will it take to win' tone
that you received some criticism for during the Superman proposal. It
would be more helpful to tell new news.groups participants that those in
news.groups have watched proposals for several years, and ask the same
kinds of questions of each proposal. Proponents should have estimated
traffic levels showing that a new group will get used before coming in
with a proposal. They should have searched at Dejanews for other groups
discussing their topic of interest. If they are proposing a moderated
group, they should have moderators and reasonable moderation policies.
Proponents who haven't done that homework prior to submitting RFDs
tend to see more exasperated commentary than those who have. That's
not unreasonable.
> 4. FAST TRACK
> 4.1 What's Fast Track?
> Fast Track is a second track process that does not yet exist, but
> which is being worked on.
This should come out of the FAQ until such time as it's a reality.
KalElFan
In article <363DE383...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
<kpa...@ford.com> writes:
>If those ten posts are the same post sent separately to each
>group, they are indeed spam. Specifically, postings with a
>Breidbart Index (the sum of the square roots of all the groups
>to which an article was posted) of 10... A BI of 10 wouldn't
>result in cancellations, but would result in the articles being
>filtered out of many newsfeeds.
Kathy, I'm hearing you but you're not hearing me. I not only
understand that news and mail administrators have tools and
guidelines they use to filter spam, I wholeheartedly support it.
The less spam the better. It would be nice if their tools weren't
so imprecise as to catch non-spam in their net on occasion,
but I'm even willing to pay that price so we have less spam.
But there are two issues here that you just may not be able
to see, having associated yourself with this line of thinking for
so long.
1. Spam Filter Tools and Mechanisms Do Not Define Spam
This is what you're trying to do with the sum-of-square root
indices and so on. As I said in the other post and again above,
I have no problem with the tools or mechanisms, or even with
the techies getting so attached to them that they can't step back
and recognize they're just spam filter programs, not spam
definitions.
But let's remember what the dog and tail are here. Spam has a
negative connotation. People dislike it. They don't dislike it
because it has a Breidbart Index of 10. They dislike it because
they view it as the electronic equivalent of junk mail: someone
trying to sell them everything from get-rich-quick schemes to
sex services. And so users have a problem with spam. Think
of that problem as the dog.
Users (the dog) now get their tail (the technology) to swat the
spam. The high-tech dog tail ends up with algorithms to do that.
Good for the tail, it's serving the dog well, which is its job. The
algorithms aren't perfect, but they're good.
Lets stop there. Let's not have the dog go about its non-spam
business, and have its own tail swatting it whenever imperfections
in the algorithms show up. The dog gets to define spam, not
the tail's algorithms.
2. The FAQ is for new users, not techies or news.groupies
I don't mind alluding to tail algorithms and the like. I might even
put the Breidbart index in a future update, but I doubt it. The
FAQ is mainly for users though, and I think that's behind much
of the differences we have here, even in your other post. I'd
strongly encourage you to recognize what I've said in #1, and
start thinking more independently and bigger-picture. Spam
is a word for all of us :-), millions and millions of us in fact. We
shouldn't encourage abuse of the term, and the terrorizing of
poor innocent dogs with wrongful cries of "spammer", all based
on the good work of a few tail-algorithm programmers who were
only trying to do the best job they could to keep the dog happy.
They weren't linguists trying to unleash rabid spam zealots on
their unsuspecting clients.
>Spam is numerical. Off-topic postings are not necessarily
>numerical.
I'm saying *both* are a factor, numerical and topical context.
The tail algorithms can only effectively deal with the numerical
aspect, but it's a mistake to assume that changes the definition
of spam and makes it only numerical. I appreciate that in your
perception, you've always let or at least accept that the tail
algorithm dictates the definition for you, but we just don't agree.
And "out there" among users there is no market for arbitrary
numerical-only definitions of spam.
>You would do a favor to new users reading your FAQ if you
>introduce the terminology the way news and mail administrators
>have come to use them. Having a common understanding of
>terms is a very useful thing.
The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
filters and algorithms. What you suggest above is actually a very
bad thing in my view. Telling a user that spam has a Breidbart
Index of 10 might only encourage them to make posts just under
the Index, thinking there's nothing wrong with it. Better to give
them a more realistic and less arbitrary definition of spam, and
let the arbitrary tail algorithms just do their job.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <363E03B9...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
<kpa...@ford.com> writes:
>The revised language on your website says 35K, but I'd suggest
>you don't use specific numbers. Everyone's view of the total
>number of available newsgroups varies based on his/her server
True, but it's in the FAQ that not all servers carry all groups. I
was citing a total, and I believe the two posters who mentioned
the 35,000 number. The point was to show the scope primarily.
The rest is pretty much covered by the preamble where I state
that opinions are those of the author. For example:
>'Tis your FAQ and all, but you might more honestly say 'this
>author views' rather than 'many view'.
It's my opinion, I think quite supported by the evidence, that
many do view this place very negatively. But this is really part
of the whole balancing act in the FAQ, as I indicated earlier in
the thread. On one side, I used terms like "terrorism" and I
think strongly defended the need for some Consensus Process,
as well as the position of Tale, Russ, and news admins, etc.
To users I was saying don't whine, don't be a terrorist, etc.,
and work to change the system.
But on the other side, I was making it clear that the system
does suck, has many flaws, and by all means let's try to fix
them. When you suggest taking out the Fast Track section, for
example, that's not something I would do because it's integral
to this balance. Same with this advertise-in-your-sig only
business and a few of your other points.
Some of your points, like moving that section to the front, are
close calls. I'm not going to change anything else right now,
but as the thing develops I'll look at your comments again.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Joshua Kramer
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> In article <363DE383...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
> <kpa...@ford.com> writes:
>
> >If those ten posts are the same post sent separately to each
> >group, they are indeed spam. Specifically, postings with a
> >Breidbart Index (the sum of the square roots of all the groups
> >to which an article was posted) of 10... A BI of 10 wouldn't
> >result in cancellations, but would result in the articles being
> >filtered out of many newsfeeds.
>
> Kathy, I'm hearing you but you're not hearing me. I not only
> understand that news and mail administrators have tools and
> guidelines they use to filter spam, I wholeheartedly support it.
> The less spam the better. It would be nice if their tools weren't
> so imprecise as to catch non-spam in their net on occasion,
> but I'm even willing to pay that price so we have less spam.
Can you give me a good example of a non-spam BI > 20 post?
> But there are two issues here that you just may not be able
> to see, having associated yourself with this line of thinking for
> so long.
Oh, great, he's going to delve into spam cancelation policy now.
> 1. Spam Filter Tools and Mechanisms Do Not Define Spam
He got one right! He got one right!
> This is what you're trying to do with the sum-of-square root
> indices and so on. As I said in the other post and again above,
> I have no problem with the tools or mechanisms, or even with
> the techies getting so attached to them that they can't step back
> and recognize they're just spam filter programs, not spam
> definitions.
Define spam, then? The FAQ, which you *HAVE NOT LOOKED AT* says
"Spam is the same thing many times."
> But let's remember what the dog and tail are here. Spam has a
> negative connotation. People dislike it. They don't dislike it
> because it has a Breidbart Index of 10. They dislike it because
> they view it as the electronic equivalent of junk mail: someone
> trying to sell them everything from get-rich-quick schemes to
> sex services. And so users have a problem with spam. Think
> of that problem as the dog.
No, that's "Commercial postings" not "spam"
Commercial postings sell stuff.
Spam is the same thing many times.
> Users (the dog) now get their tail (the technology) to swat the
> spam. The high-tech dog tail ends up with algorithms to do that.
> Good for the tail, it's serving the dog well, which is its job. The
> algorithms aren't perfect, but they're good.
Give me one example of BI > 20 non-spam, please.
> Lets stop there. Let's not have the dog go about its non-spam
> business, and have its own tail swatting it whenever imperfections
> in the algorithms show up. The dog gets to define spam, not
> the tail's algorithms.
Spam is the same thing posted many times. Spam which has reached a BI of 20
is cancelable.
There, I've summed up the rules for the big-8 and alt.
> 2. The FAQ is for new users, not techies or news.groupies
IE: New Users, like JailFan, can be completly clueless!
> I don't mind alluding to tail algorithms and the like. I might even
> put the Breidbart index in a future update, but I doubt it. The
> FAQ is mainly for users though, and I think that's behind much
> of the differences we have here, even in your other post. I'd
> strongly encourage you to recognize what I've said in #1, and
> start thinking more independently and bigger-picture. Spam
> is a word for all of us :-), millions and millions of us in fact. We
> shouldn't encourage abuse of the term, and the terrorizing of
> poor innocent dogs with wrongful cries of "spammer", all based
> on the good work of a few tail-algorithm programmers who were
> only trying to do the best job they could to keep the dog happy.
> They weren't linguists trying to unleash rabid spam zealots on
> their unsuspecting clients.
Rhetoric, no point.
> >Spam is numerical. Off-topic postings are not necessarily
> >numerical.
>
> I'm saying *both* are a factor, numerical and topical context.
Then you are wrong. Spam is the same thing many times. Any other definition
is incorrect, unless you believe that FAQ's predating your computer are
wrong.
> The tail algorithms can only effectively deal with the numerical
> aspect, but it's a mistake to assume that changes the definition
> of spam and makes it only numerical.
It's good that we don't put a number in "many" as in
"Spam is the same thing posted many times."
> I appreciate that in your
> perception, you've always let or at least accept that the tail
> algorithm dictates the definition for you, but we just don't agree.
And you are more right than the FAQ maintainer on spam cancelation policy
across hierarchies (That's me) and the FAQ maintainer on spam cancelation
policy for the big-8 and alt.*, Tim Skirvin, because?
> And "out there" among users there is no market for arbitrary
> numerical-only definitions of spam.
Spam is the same thing posted many times.
> >You would do a favor to new users reading your FAQ if you
> >introduce the terminology the way news and mail administrators
> >have come to use them. Having a common understanding of
> >terms is a very useful thing.
>
> The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
> filters and algorithms. What you suggest above is actually a very
> bad thing in my view. Telling a user that spam has a Breidbart
> Index of 10 might only encourage them to make posts just under
> the Index, thinking there's nothing wrong with it.
No, Spam is the same thing posted many times. If spammers moved to posting
with BI = 19.9999 then the guidelines for cancelation would change, but not
the definition.
> Better to give
> them a more realistic and less arbitrary definition of spam, and
> let the arbitrary tail algorithms just do their job.
Spam is the same thing posted many times.
Off-topic is what you are posting.
Followups set to the appropriate newsgroup where the appropriate people might
read it.
Joshua Kramer
Another Opinion on FAQs (Usenet)
[Last Revised November 2, 1998]
This FAQ presents a basic rebuttal to the blatant inaccuracies in a previous
document labeled FAQs For New Readers/Posters/Proponents.
1. The Real Basics
1.1 Who the heck are you?
1.2 Who the heck is KalElFan?
1.3 Why are you posting this?
2. Glaring Errors in the previous FAQ For New Readers/Posters
2.1 How many Newsgroups Are There?
2.2 Do Newsreader Features Vary?
2.4 What's the Best Newsreader, and Where Can I Get It?
2.5 Common Mistake: Not Reading Before Posting
2.6 Common Mistake: Quoting Too Extensively
2.6 Common Mistake: Answering Spams and Trolls & Not Staying On Topic
3. Glaring Errors in the previous FAQ For New Readers/Poster/Proponents
3.1 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
3.2 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
3.3 Can I Campaign?
3.4 Can I Do Straw Polls?
3.5 What About the Trolls In Them There Hills?
3.6 What's Fast Track?
3.7 Who's Supporting Fast Track?
1. The Real Basics
1.1 Who the heck are you?
I am Joshua Kramer, nothing more, nothing less. I am an undergraduate physics
major at Swarthmore College. I have read usenet for over 7 years, since I
was a freshman in highschool. I am a regular reader and contributor to a
number of administrative groups, including, but not limited to, news.groups,
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and alt.config, since the rec.games.bolo binaries
debacle. I was listed as a trusted rmgrouper on alt.config for a period of
about a year until I resigned over a serious mistake that I had made. I
recently joined the group-mentors mailing list. I do read and post to a
number of other groups, but I use another account and server for such
activities, such that I will not draw the ire of individuals to those groups.
1.2 Who the heck is KaElFan?
Good question, because, unlike most other respected regulars of administrative
groups, KaElFan hides behind an assumed name. In fact, KaElFan is a
disgruntled proponent of rec.arts.superman. He believes that his wisdom
will cure the big-8 group creation system of all flaws. He is, like all
others before him who did not lurk before posting monstrous revision
proposals, wrong.
1.3 Why are you posting this?
Because I will not allow the false information in the previous FAQ to lie
unchallenged.
2. Glaring Errors in the previous FAQ For New Readers/Posters:
2.1 How Many Newsgroups Are There?
Lots. Many servers carry around 35,000. Others carry only 1. An easy
way to check how many newsgroups you should think there are is by
examining the info on your newsserver. Since it's the server you use,
those are the groups you can see.
2.3 Do Newsreader Features Vary?
Yes. A newsreader will allow you to crosspost. If yours does not, you
are using an "over glorified terminal application." A newsreader will allow
you to filter messages on given criteria. If yours does not, you are using
an "over glorified terminal application."
Netscape and Internet Explorer are "over glorified terminal applications."
2.4 What's the Best Newsreader, and Where Can I Get It?
For the macintosh, you should get MT-Newswatcher by Simon Fraser,
available at http://www.best.com/~smfr/mtnw
For the PC, you should get Forte Free Agent, available at
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/freagent.htm
If you are using UNIX or Linux you should know what you like - I swear
by trn, but there are many other options.
2.5 Common Mistake: Not Reading Before Posting
Irony, right?
2.6 Common Mistake: Quoting Too Extensively
> Try not to waste "bandwidth"
Irony again, yes?
(For those not getting it, KaElFan is a professional
not-reader-before-poster and waster of bandwidth.)
2.7 Answering Spams and Trolls & Not Staying On-Topic
Spam is something posted many times. It has nothing to do with topicality.
You should never respond to off-topic posts. You can't ever know something
is spam until you see it many times. In any case, if the spam is on topic,
feel free to respond to it.
3. Glaring Errors in the previous FAQ For New Readers/Poster/Proponents
3.1 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
Because Tale prefers to remain above the fray, and that's because he's
not willing to solve the mess that is currently the big-8. It's Tale's
volunteer obligation to make sure only good newsgroups get through,
which is why he should be vetoing RFD's like "rec.arts.superman,"
"rec.pets.cats.clowder," and "soc.subculture.bondage-bsdm."
Before you say "He's a volunteer, who are you to criticize?" I'd like to
note that I would be more than happy to take on the portion of Tale's job
that involves administrative decisions, leaving him only the processing and
sending of messages authorized by me. These two jobs are in no way
required to be linked.
3.2 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
These names, names, names are a major cause of contentious discussion
and even flaming on news.groups. Proponents and supporters of a group
typically like their lame ketchy names, while news.groups folk are
typically level-headed and correct about what groups should be named.
If you are an ass, and don't listen to the news.groupies/group-advice,
be prepared for controversy and failure. Even several "precedents" will
not save you from people noting that comparing yourself to poop just
makes you look like a dung heap.
Do keep an open mind on naming - if someone you have never heard of before
proposes a name, and you don't like it, you should first check to see if they
know what they are talking about, and, if they do, you should take their
advice *VERY* *SERIOUSLY*
People to rigorously watch for are normally people posting to multiple
threads on news.groups. Some, like Kathy Pascoe, are level headed about
these issues, while others, like myself, while almost always correct about
appropriate naming, are more abrasive.
3.3 Can I Campaign?
No. Campaigning goes against all of the underlying spirit of an interest
poll. Discuss your pre-RFD in relevant groups, Post the RFD/CFV to less
than 8 relevant groups, do what news.groups regulars tell you to do
regarding changes in naming, and you will not need to campaign at all.
3.4 Can I Do Straw Polls?
During the RFD it really depends on the point of the poll. Polls on names
are normally useless, while polls on moderation are often good. Supporters
of your group hardly ever care about the exact name, so don't sweat it.
Pre-RFD polls are good things, and should be done.
3.5 What About the Trolls In Them There Hills?
If it's not crossposted, and you don't see other news.groups regulars saying
"ignore the troll" after you first respond, it's not a troll. News.groups
is not regularly trolled.
3.6 What's Fast Track?
Fast Track is basically a dead in the water idea from a pissed-off proponent.
It has no support from people who have actually been around, and is generally
a bad idea. The system works if you work with the system. Yes, you can't make
"rec.arts.superman," but you'll just have to deal with having a less
prestigious group location.
3.7 Who's Supporting Fast Track?
KaElFan, KaElFan and KaElFan.
Steven S. Davis
:
: In article <363DE383...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
: <kpa...@ford.com> writes:
:
: >If those ten posts are the same post sent separately to each
: >group, they are indeed spam. Specifically, postings with a
: >Breidbart Index (the sum of the square roots of all the groups
: >to which an article was posted) of 10... A BI of 10 wouldn't
: >result in cancellations, but would result in the articles being
: >filtered out of many newsfeeds.
:
: Kathy, I'm hearing you
No, you aren't.
*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
Email spam is unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk
email, and is a different creature. Excessive multiposting
(EMP, and used in a usenet context people know it does not mean
electromagnetic pulse, just as they know that "spam" doesn't
identify a pork product in that context), has always been what
has defined spam, though today excessive crossposting (ECP,
aka ("velveeta")) is often included in the definition.
Content is irrelevant. Because spam will usually be offtopic
in most of the groups it is posted to, and because spam is very often
commercial, uninformed people sometimes think that spam is "spam"
because it's offtopic or commercial. It is not. It is spam because
it is posted excessively. Post the same article every day in one
newsgroup where it is completely on topic, and that is spam, and by
the end of the month (sooner, actually) it would be cancellable spam
because it would be in excess of the BI.
Your FAQ for new users should not be misinforming them that "spam"
is defined by it being offtopic. "Spam" almost always will be
offtopic (though it doesn't have to be) in most of the newsgroups
to which it is posted, but that isn't why it is spam. It is spam
because it is excessively posted. A new users FAQ should correctly
identify usenet spam (EMP/ECP), email spam (UCE/UBE), off-topic
articles, and commercial articles posted to noncommercial groups
(commercial articles are *not* always spam, and are not always
netiquette violations) as the four seperate issue that they are,
and accurately define each of them.
Yes, you are correct, the BI does not define spam. The BI is
used to indentify which spams can, in a widespread though not universe
view, be cancelled with third party cancels. What makes it spam is that
it is excessively multiposted and a misuse of usenet resources. When
that level occurs is a matter of judgement. It has already occured long
before the BI kicks in, since the BI is about identifying cancellable
spam (ie those spams severe enough that they pose a threat to the
functioning of usenet), not defining spam.
Two multiposts are a spam, even if the article is on topic in, and
permitted, by the protocols of both newsgroups, if there is no good
reason why the article couldn't have been crossposted, because such
is a misuse of net resources. Not a very serious spam, but still a
spam.
: but you're not hearing me. I not only
: understand that news and mail administrators have tools and
: guidelines they use to filter spam, I wholeheartedly support it.
: The less spam the better. It would be nice if their tools weren't
: so imprecise as to catch non-spam in their net on occasion,
They never do, if they use the BI, because anything exceeding
the BI is misuse of net resources and therefore a spam, regardless
of content. It is almost impossible to exceed the BI with
on-topic multiposts, without reposting. It is impossible to
exceed the BI with on-topic crossposting.
: but I'm even willing to pay that price so we have less spam.
:
: But there are two issues here that you just may not be able
: to see, having associated yourself with this line of thinking for
: so long.
:
: 1. Spam Filter Tools and Mechanisms Do Not Define Spam
This is true. Excessive multiposting and, in the looser
definition, excessive crossposting define spam. The BI defines
cancellable spam. At lower levels, what qualifies as "excessive"
is left to individual judgement, but before one reaches the BI
one is already multi/cross posting excessively.
: This is what you're trying to do with the sum-of-square root
: indices and so on. As I said in the other post and again above,
: I have no problem with the tools or mechanisms, or even with
: the techies getting so attached to them that they can't step back
: and recognize they're just spam filter programs, not spam
: definitions.
This is true. But the definition of spam does not depend upon
content. Content does not make something spam or not spam.
Misuse of net resources makes something spam.
:
: 2. The FAQ is for new users, not techies or news.groupies
So give them the right definitions, and not those that have gained
currency among the uninformed who were never properly informed.
: >Spam is numerical. Off-topic postings are not necessarily
: >numerical.
:
: I'm saying *both* are a factor, numerical and topical context.
And you are wrong.
: >You would do a favor to new users reading your FAQ if you
: >introduce the terminology the way news and mail administrators
: >have come to use them. Having a common understanding of
: >terms is a very useful thing.
:
: The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
: filters and algorithms.
That would also be wrong. Explain it in terms of misuse of resources.
Feel free to borrow any of the following article you wish to use. Or
find a source elsewhere. But explain what spam is, so users reading
your FAQ will learn how to complain about the right issues when complaint
is required.
Subject: Re: Spamming???
Newsgroups: alt.newbie
References: <3303C0...@mcl.ucsb.edu>
In article <3303C0...@mcl.ucsb.edu>, Jamie Kong wrote.
: Hi!
: I'm new to the newsgroup, and I'd like to know some conventional
: expressions that are commonly used in the newsgroups.
:
: I have heard of spamming (posting one message to multiple groups, is
: that right?) and that it's not a good thing to do. I wonder why???
: Can any one help me with other terms I should know so that I won't be
: laughed at in other newsgroups?
It's not the jargon that matters. The articles in
news.announce.newusers will cover most of them, and you
can find some in the Jargon File, at, among other places:
http://www.fwi.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/
But it isn't what something's called, but rather how and why it
impedes the functioning of a newsgroup or newsgroup, that you
need to know.
"Spam" is increasingly used to describe anything that is unwelcome or
which the speaker dislikes. Any unsolicted "junk" email is likely
to be called "spam". As regards Usenet postings, it has a specific,
if increasingly ignored definition: spam is excessive
multiposting (i.e. making individual postings to many newsgroups;
there is also excessive crossposting, the crossposting of a message
to a great many newsgroups, often called "velveeta", which is also
a form of netabuse, but because it takes up less space on newsservers
and because good newsreaders don't show the reader a crossposted
article more than once, excessive crossposting ("velveeta") is not
generally not regarded as being as severe a form of netabuse as
excessive multiposting ("spam")).
Why are both "spam" and "velvetta" abuses of Usenet ? Well,
Usenet, as you may have noticed, is divided up into many individual
newsgroups, and while there is both duplication and overlap, the
idea is that people can use their valuable time, energy, and
net access reading material that is of interest to them in groups
designated for those topics. When people post off-topic articles
to newsgroups, they waste the valuable resources of all the readers
of those groups, and make it harder to find those articles that would
be of interest. Anyone who excessively multi/cross posts is invariably
posting where the message is off-topic (if there is something that
everyone should see, there is a newgroup for that,
news.announce.important), and therefore misusing Usenet and abusing
the readers of those newgroups where the article was off-topic.
If the poster did a multipost ("spam") instead of a crosspost
"velvetta", then besides disrupting Usenet, sie (he or she) is
also wasting "bandwidth", aka net resources (the computer time,
transmission lines, hard disk space, and all the other resources
required to store, forward, and read Usenet articles). Crossposts
exist as one message with the same message-id, with pointer to
that message in all the directories on a newspool save the one
directory in which the message is stored. Besides allowing decent
newsreaders to only show the reader the message once no matter to
how many groups the message was crossposted, this requires a lot
less disk space than does storing the entire article in each
directory of the news spool, which is what happen when that message
is individually posted to many newgroups, and which is why "spam"
(excessive multiposting) is worse then "velveeta" (but "velveeta"
- excessive crossposting - is also abuse of Usenet and its readers).
Now, what constitutes "excessive" ? That's a subjective decision.
Some people feel that making individual postings of the same article
to two newsgroups (instead of doing a crossposting) is spam. There's
a widespread view that posting the same article to 20 or more newsgroups
on the same day is a sufficiently severe case of spamming to merit
cancelling that posting (there's also some fervent dissent to this view).
But posting the message individually to 19 groups would still be spam,
even if it hadn't crossed the threshold of what is regarded as cancelable
spam. The content of the message is, BTW, irrelevent. It isn't spam
because it's advertising (though much advertising is spam) or because
it's off-topic (though most spam is off-topic in many of the groups to
which it is posted), but because it is excessively multiposted, a misuse
of net resources, and an abuse of net users.
In many people's view, one can spam a single newsgroup by posting
the same message a great many times within a short period.
Also, in many people's views, small alterations in an article
(a gimmick many spammers have attempted) do not alter the status
of the article as spam.
The commonly given answer as to how excessive multiposting came to
be called "spam" is that it came from a Monty Python sketch in which
every entree at an eating establishment included spam, despite the
patron's complaint that "I don't like SPAM". Since some of the most
prominent early spams, the "Jesus is Coming" spam and Canter & Siegel's
"Green Card" spam, went to all the newsgroups that the poster's bots
could reach, that sense of "spam in *everything*" would fit the skit,
but I don't know that anyone can state authoritatively how the term
came into use.
For more information regarding netabuse:
The news.admin.net-abuse.misc Net Abuse FAQ file is available at
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
An excellent document, which lists many others, is the
alt.spam FAQ. It includes a lot of information on identifying,
tracing, and fighting spam, with useful links to sites, documents,
and utilities which can help in the fight. This is available from
several places, including:
http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-abuse-faq/spam-faq.html
This is the best formatted version, with links to the sites named within
it.
The author's page, http://digital.net/~gandalf/spamfaq.html
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/alt.spam/
Or with the other net-abuse FAQ's at:
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/admin/net-abuse/misc/
The same person has a very good FAQ on trollers and trollers, at:
http://digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html
Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu) maintains the
"Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines" article,
which can be found at the URL:
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
The "Fight Spam on the Internet !" site is at:
http://www.vix.com/spam/
or
http://spam.abuse.net/
The Network Abuse Clearinghouse is at: http://www.abuse.net/
WD Basely has an Email Abuse FAQ available at:
http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/emailfaq.html
or
ftp://members.aol.com/emailfaq/emailfaq.txt
W.D. Basely also has an Email Abuse Resource List, which among
other things lists many ISP abuse addresses and tracking tools.
It's available at:
HTML: http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/resource-list.html
or
FTP: ftp://members.aol.com/emailfaq/resource-list.txt
There's a lot of good information in the
"Help ! I've been Spammed ! What do I do ?" guide, which is at:
http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html
or
http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.txt
An organization created to oppose email spam with legislation
is CAUCE, which has a webpage at:
http://www.cauce.org
A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post
commercial advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion.
Inquiries go to comm...@acpub.duke.edu.
***************************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com * ssd...@ot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A news.groups survival guide" is to be found at the URL:
http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html
Documents on the newsgroup creation process can be found at:
http://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/
Guy Macon
>
>2.4 What's the Best Newsreader, and Where Can I Get It?
>For the macintosh, you should get MT-Newswatcher by Simon Fraser,
>available at http://www.best.com/~smfr/mtnw
>
>For the PC, you should get Forte Free Agent, available at
>http://www.forteinc.com/agent/freagent.htm
>
>If you are using UNIX or Linux you should know what you like - I swear
>by trn, but there are many other options.
For a FAQ to list a "best" Newsreader is probably a Bad Thing. I, for
example, believe that WinVN is superior to Free Agent, at the same price
(free). I suggest listing two or three Newsreaders for the PC rather
than FAQifying a subjective judgement that is peripheral to the subject
of the FAQ.
WinVN is available at:
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/software/winvn/winvn.html
Gillam Kerley
>
>
> Fundamental flaw or not, Belinda is correct. Defining spam in terms
> of usenet abuse is all about the number of times something is posted,
> not the extent to which a posting is off-topic for a particular group.
> While it's possible that an off-topic posting was also spammed, it's
> not a given.
>
> Please take Belinda's very good advice and do not muddy the waters.
I think that horse has already left the barn.
A word means what people understand it to mean. IMO, the majority
of Usenet readers -- as opposed to news admins and techies -- understand
"spam" to mean off-topic (esp. commercial) as well as
cross-posted/repetitively posted items.
Rather than fight this trend, I would suggest that news admins adopt the
term "cancellable spam" to refer to posts which flunk the BI test, and
let the masses have their definition for "spam".
After all, the Oxford English Dictionary has just surrendered
after years of struggle and approved splitting infinitives.
GK
Joshua Kramer
Macon) wrote:
> For a FAQ to list a "best" Newsreader is probably a Bad Thing. I, for
> example, believe that WinVN is superior to Free Agent, at the same price
> (free). I suggest listing two or three Newsreaders for the PC rather
> than FAQifying a subjective judgement that is peripheral to the subject
> of the FAQ.
>
> WinVN is available at:
> http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/software/winvn/winvn.html
I'm happy to include WinVN, and I think it's probably just better to codify
the requirements that a newsreader *MUST* have to be good, and give examples
for each platform. I'll add slrn and Gravity also, probably.
*Windows newsreaders are so complicated. It's so clear on the mac side.
Mac-Soup for offline, MT for online.*
--
"Comparing yourself to poop just makes you look like a dung heap."
-Joshua Kramer
Joshua Kramer
gbur...@databasix.com wrote:
> On 02 Nov 1998 07:34:15 GMT, in article
> <19981102023415...@ngol05.aol.com>, kale...@aol.com (KalElFan)
> wrote:
> > But if a
> >Superman fan I know who has a question e-mails me and a
> >few other fans hoping one of us has the answer, sorry but he
> >ain't a spammer and I don't care how many techie web sites
> >say he is.
>
> If he blindly sends to everyone reading a newsgroup, it's UCE
Only because we are playing a definition game I write this.
It's *UBE* not *UCE* because it's a non-commercial message to lots of
people.
Unsolicited Bulk Email. Not Unsolicited Commercial Email.
> For example, I'll fight for YOUR right to speak in USENet if you don't SPAM
> it.
One might argue that his useless rants are substantially identical.
*grin*
> >As I see it, it's *you*
> >and any others you cite who are trying to set an inappropriate
> >definition here.
>
> Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not correct. Your opinion
> is incorrrect. I still can't understand why you don't just LISTEN to people
> who happen to know more about the subject than you do.
You see, the way he operates, he's right, and it's everyone else who is wrong.
You should read his FAQ and my rebuttal.
> >Ten on-topic Superman posts to ten groups
> >where the Superman post is on-topic cannot be spam,
>
> If they're the EXACT SAME POST every time, YES, They are SPAM.
And if it's a crosspost, it's Velveeta.
Crossposts and followups set.
Jay Denebeim
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm saying *both* are a factor, numerical and topical context.
What you're saying is *wrong* it's purely numerical. If someone
posted how much he loved the new superman comic book to every
newsgroup, it's spam, even in the superman newsgroup.
Think about the derivation of the word, it ain't spam if it's not
spam, eggs, spam, spam, spam, and bacon.
>And "out there" among users there is no market for arbitrary
>numerical-only definitions of spam.
I bet you think phreaks and pirates are hackers too.
Jay Denebeim
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <71leou$gs7$1...@links.magenta.com>,
>s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) writes:
>
>>*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
>
It is, however, the *correct* definition.
>Kramer says spam is the same thing posted many times.
Kramer doesn't think you're bright enough to understand words like
excessive and multiposting.
>He doesn't attempt to modify it with excessive.
And you're attempting to play semantic games.
>I didn't attempt a formal definition, but take the position that
>*both* numerical and topical considerations have to enter into it.
And you're *still* wrong.
>It's a judgment call based on the facts.
I suppose. If you're trying to decide whether or not to look like an
idiot in a FAQ that will probably be around longer than you are, go
for it. However, use the wrong definition, and you *will* be judged
an idiot.
>Kathy was saying the BI index determines it. Heck, later on
>you give yet another definition of spam:
>
>>Misuse of net resources makes something spam.
>
>And you even use that in one instance to mandate crossposting.
>A post to two groups is spam unless there's a good reason why
>it can't be crossposted.
However, they're *all* talking about the same concept, you are not.
Josh: It's a cow
Kathy: It's a thing with an udder that says moo.
Steve: It's a member of the bovine family.
Kalel: It's a horsie.
>Presumably a newsreader that can't crosspost would be a good reason.
It's a good reason to get another newsreader.
>So 13 million AOLers are off the hook, but a poster who's unaware
>that his software will crosspost is a spammer.
No, 13 million AOLers look like idiots, but that's nothing new for
them. It's not like they can't use a different newsreader.
>In effect, user sophistication with software determines spam in this
>instance, unless you think ignorance is a good excuse.
Let's just say we try to be gentle with the feeble minded, at least
until they get uppity. Once they start bragging about their ignorance
and trying to infect others with it, then the kid gloves come off.
>And of course two posts are not many, so none of that meets
>Kramer's definition.
That depends on your definition of many, I'm sure most would agree two
of your 300 line diatribes is *way* excessive.
>And we continue to go round and round,
>completing the circle, because that article you posted said this:
>
>>When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they
>>waste the valuable resources of all the readers of those
>>groups
>
>Which means under the previous quote above that off-topic
>posting ( = waste of resources) makes something spam. So
>we're full circle, and you're supporting my definition now!
That's gotta be about the most convoluted logic I've ever seen. You
must have had religious training.
>Clearly there are many definitions, and they conflict.
See, even *you* think two is many.
>They don't all catch the same things.
I know, your definition catches non-spam.
>We can discuss it a bit more, but there's no point in any of us
>expecting anyone else to accept our definition as *the* definition.
There has been a definition for alot longer than you've been on-line.
Several people have independently told you what it is. You're still
using your incorrect definition. Nobody else has agreed with your
definition. You're still using your incorrect definition.
The only thing that pisses me off more than spam, is willful
ignorance.
>I think it's clear that the topical content has to be *a*
>consideration (not *the* consideration) and the examples below
>illustrate that.
And I think it's clear that you're a willful idiot.
Jay Denebeim
KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <363e48aa....@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
>>Your definition of SPAM is incorrect. Many are telling you this.
>
>And I'm educating them Gary. :-)
Since when is perpetuating and incorrect concept educating?
Jay Denebeim
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Unsolicited commercial email is UCE. Calling UCE SPAM is incorrect
>but it's common because so many new users were incorrectly informed.
>Gee, where have we heard that before?
Disagree. UCE isn't necessarily spam, but UBE is. (IOW you can have
UCE that isn't bulk, its the bulk that makes it spam)
Jay Denebeim
Joshua Kramer <jkra...@swarthmore.edu> wrote:
>3.6 What's Fast Track?
>Fast Track is basically a dead in the water idea from a pissed-off
>proponent. It has no support from people who have actually been
>around, and is generally a bad idea. The system works if you work
>with the system. Yes, you can't make "rec.arts.superman," but you'll
>just have to deal with having a less prestigious group location.
Excellent FAQ Josh.
I do think you need to add something to this section about the
superman newsgroup taking seven months and its passage being
questionable up to the last minute because they didn't want to put the
group where it belonged, which would have gotten them through in the
minimum amount of time.
Oh, and you might want to mention he was kicked off his proponant
team.
Jay Denebeim
Kathy Pascoe <kpa...@ford.com> wrote:
>I understand that you're ticked off, but seriously, many groups
>wander in and out of here with nary a peep of bad feelings. 'Tis
>your FAQ and all, but you might more honestly say 'this author views'
>rather than 'many view'.
I was thinking about this statement all day today. It seems to me
it's actually *most* groups which go through with nary a hitch. If
the proponants have a clue, any contention comes in with them.
For instance, rastb5m had almost zero opposition from news.groups.
Yeah, it was a contentious thread, in fact, it was just as bad as the
current www thread, if not worse, but we brought our own contention in
with us.
>And I agree with what Kate posted last week, that you shouldn't include
>non-standard processes in a FAQ about a well established process.
Especially because the FAQ is too long, the MEGO factor is
tremendous. Oh, and it would help if you could write it so that it
was interesting. You might want to take a few clues from Josh's FAQ,
brutal, yes, but also not overlong, funny, and to the point.
>> 3.3.7 Why Can't I Send Out the Ballot?
>> Well, this is a good question. Many feel it's an artificial way of
>> keeping the Yes support down.
>
>What?
That's just kalcan displaying ignorance again, pay it no mind.
>It's not because people want new proposals to fail, at least not in
>my opinion.
I think it's more because the IQ is falling and the belligerence is
rising at exponential rates on usenet.
>This is kinda adversarial, and has that 'what will it take to win' tone
>that you received some criticism for during the Superman proposal.
Not to mention got him kicked off the proponant team.
KalElFan
In article <jkramer1-021...@d160.roberts.swarthmore.edu>,
jkra...@swarthmore.edu (Joshua Kramer) writes:
>Another Opinion on FAQs (Usenet)
As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form or flattery... or
was that a sure sign of creative bankruptcy and moral deficiency?
Whatever, but you do know that having you and Gary Burnore,
perhaps the premiere news.groups trolls, getting your shorts all
in a knot is like a wet dream for all who stand for Truth, Justice,
and the Usenet way, right? :-)
BTW, I'm magnanimous in victory. I'll accept your unconditional
surrender on the content-is-a-factor-in-spam issue, and promise
not to rub it in. :-)
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
>Sorry, wrong answer. If you posted your FAQ (Which doesn't
>sell anyting) once/day for 20 days, you'd be SPAMMing.
Well, this had nothing to do with my point that the dog (users)
gets to define spam, not the tail (spam filter algorithms). But
for what it's worth, I'd agree that deliberate multiple postings of
the same otherwise on-topic post would be spam. But you
could argue that post becomes off-topic when it's made a
second, third time, etc., within a short period, because the
multiple posts are irrelevant to the readers of the group.
>Your definition of SPAM is incorrect. Many are telling you this.
And I'm educating them Gary. :-)
Seriously, the discussion's been interesting but I'm not sure
there's much point to continuing it. The discussion with Steven
Davis I think illustrates that you *do* end up at content as *a*
factor in making judgments about what spam is, and I agree
that the *numerical* test is also a factor. I just haven't seen
any defense of the numerical-only-test argument.
And I absolutely agree that the barn door was opened and the
dogs and every other animal have long since left. Why not
just focus on "cancelable spam" or some such rather than
fight a definitional war you can never win? The term spam
has infiltrated the language in a way that can never be altered
the way you'd like. Don't fight 'em, join 'em.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
>*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
It's your definition, not the definition. Kramer says spam is the
same thing posted many times. He doesn't attempt to modify
it with excessive. I didn't attempt a formal definition, but take
the position that *both* numerical and topical considerations
have to enter into it. It's a judgment call based on the facts.
Kathy was saying the BI index determines it. Heck, later on
you give yet another definition of spam:
>Misuse of net resources makes something spam.
And you even use that in one instance to mandate crossposting.
A post to two groups is spam unless there's a good reason why
it can't be crossposted. Presumably a newsreader that can't
crosspost would be a good reason. So 13 million AOLers are
off the hook, but a poster who's unaware that his software will
crosspost is a spammer. In effect, user sophistication with
software determines spam in this instance, unless you think
ignorance is a good excuse.
And of course two posts are not many, so none of that meets
Kramer's definition. And we continue to go round and round,
completing the circle, because that article you posted said this:
>When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they
>waste the valuable resources of all the readers of those
>groups
Which means under the previous quote above that off-topic
posting ( = waste of resources) makes something spam. So
we're full circle, and you're supporting my definition now!
Clearly there are many definitions, and they conflict. They don't
all catch the same things. We can discuss it a bit more, but
there's no point in any of us expecting anyone else to accept
our definition as *the* definition. I think it's clear that the topical
content has to be *a* consideration (not *the* consideration)
and the examples below illustrate that. More importantly, the
*user* view of spam illustrates that.
>Content is irrelevant... uninformed people sometimes think that
>spam is "spam" because it's offtopic or commercial. It is not.
>It is spam because it is posted excessively. Post the same
>article every day in one newsgroup where it is completely on
>topic, and that is spam...
You're trying too had, and unnecessarily hard, to deny that
content is *a* factor. No one said a commercial post is by
definition spam, or an off-topic post is by definition spam. And
no one should be saying that duplicate posts are by definition
spam, because it's too simplistic. One test is not enough.
>Your FAQ for new users should not be misinforming them
>that "spam" is defined by it being offtopic.
In *part* by it being off-topic. If you want to refute it, you'll have
to deal with the closed circle above, and the specific examples.
Ten "ooh-spam-me-baby.com" posts versus ten on-topic
Superman posts to ten newsgroups where that is on-topic.
Kramer wanted more than 10, which I guess means he accepts
the Superman 10-post example. Anyway, he wanted 20. I'll give
him and you 100 or more. Consider a proposal to rename every
group in the rec.arts.* hierarchy either arts.* or rec.* A generalized
RFD is posted or crossposted to all affected groups.
Now, you can run through hoops here to try to protect your
numerical-only definition if you must, but the fact is that content
does matter. Even Kramer's definition -- the *same* thing posted
multiple times -- explicitly recognizes content as a factor. It's
spam only if the content is the same, under his definition. If
I wanted to get around it, I could alter content ever so slightly
and do 1,000 posts. So he'd have to move to a "substantially
similar" test which again gets to content.
Your "excessive" test can also be looked at in the content sense,
and maybe you'd use it for that purpose I don't know. If you said
"what is excessive may depend on a variety of factors, including
content, minimizing misuse of net resources, etc." then we aren't
that far off.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <71m2r5$6km$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>What you're saying is *wrong* it's purely numerical. If someone
>posted how much he loved the new superman comic book to every
>newsgroup, it's spam, even in the superman newsgroup.
And my definition easily catches that if you accept that off-topic
posting is determined at least partially by intent. In this case, the
poster has posted indiscriminately, and made no attempt to
limit posting to groups where the post is on-topic. So I agree
with you it's all spam, and isn't exempt from the spam charge
in a few groups because it happens to be on-topic in those few
groups.
Again, I think the key thing here is that the numerical-only people
are letting the tail wag the dog, and trying too hard to not have
content be *a* factor. You're fighting a losing battle anyway,
at least outside the tail bastion. Keep your definition if you
want, inside that bastion which I'm not a part of but I'm glad
exists. I'm just not going to perpetuate this neurotic compulsion
some of it seems to have to dictate the definition of a term in
a way that's long been incompatible with its popular meaning.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <71m6cd$87u$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) writes
From:
>It is, however, the *correct* definition.
To:
>And I think it's clear that you're a willful idiot.
With almost everything in between also ranting assertion. Jay
ignores logic like a child ignores reason in a tantrum. Here's
the best one:
>[KalElFan wrote]:
>>And we continue to go round and round, completing the
>>circle, because that article [Steven Davis] posted said this:
>>
>>>When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they
>>>waste the valuable resources of all the readers of those
>>>groups
>>
>>Which means under the previous quote above that off-topic
>>posting ( = waste of resources) makes something spam. So
>>we're full circle, and you're supporting my definition now!
>
>That's gotta be about the most convoluted logic I've ever seen.
>You must have had religious training.
I was so happy to see this unconditional logic surrender. Let's
role the tape for Jay and the Logic 101 crowd:
A. When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they waste
the valuable resources of all the readers of those groups (1)
B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
C. Off-topic articles to newsgroups are spam (3)
Read it and weep, howl, curse, throw a tantrum, whatever.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
(1) From the article Steven Davis quoted, and it's so common
sense that I doubt even the Trolling Trio here will challenge it.
(2) Steven Davis, a few posts back.
(3) Elementary Logic 101 flowing from the first two. If you don't
follow this, go back and read it again, slowly. Think about
each step.
And have a nice day. :-)
KalElFan
In article <71m6k6$88s$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>Since when is perpetuating and incorrect concept educating?
Well, you have a logic hurdle to overcome in the other post
Jay. Putting an assertion in a question, like you have above,
is just as meaningless as your other wishful assertions.
But here's where I try to explain my style. I plead guilty to
sometimes *really* rubbing it in as a discussion escalates and
I (yawn) end up winning. And I admit to taking some pleasure in
it in your case. But the main reason I do this is because I don't
*want* people out there to challenge or dismiss what I write
lightly. I want to have a reputation that if you get into a logical
debate with KalElFan, you risk ending up with your cyberspace
ego in tatters.
Now, do I do this because I'm a mean and nasty person? Well,
of course. :-) (1) Do I do it because I have an infuriating and
invincible cyberspace ego? Sure. (1) But I also have a more
practical reason. It's a monumental waste of time to have to
deal with ill-prepared and ill-equipped debate opponents. I
*want*, very much, to discourage people from challenging me
lightly.
(1) That having been said, I do have the big ego, but I don't do
it to be mean and nasty. That was a self-deprecating joke. I
apologize to Kathy and Steven, for example, for the educate
remark above. I hope neither they, nor anyone else, gets too
worked up or offended by it. It's just KalElFan shtick, and I
don't mean anything personally hurtful by it.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
[Some tough and hint-of-tough stuff, but in the end I have a
"Can't we all just get along?" preference with the three I'm
addressing.]
Now, while I'm at it I'll address the Trolling Trio here: Joshua,
Gary, and Jay. I was hoping Jay would show up with you
other two.
Let's first get the differences out of the way and on the record.
I think all three of you are extremely bad for the environment
here on news.groups. You're unrelentingly hostile, especially
to newbies (I use that term in the new to news.groups sense).
You're well known for this among news.groupies, but newbies
don't know what to make of you and it often inflames things.
Jeff Wilson was telling Jay this a while back -- that he thought
Jay was the single biggest cause of things getting out of control
around here -- but Jay just blew him off with an "I yam, what I
yam" post.
Now, having said that, I don't personally dislike any of you.
There've been several of Jay's posts and a few of Joshua's
that I've found useful because they mentioned an issue or
issues that I hadn't considered for example. And I've gone
out of my way recently not to try to escalate things with you,
at least before this.
But you have to understand the situation has changed now.
The massive, terrorist No threat against the Superman proposal
no longer exists. I can identify you as the Trolling Trio, and
you or a few supporters can come in and object, but it doesn't
amount to a hill of beans. There are a couple other lesser trolls
who might come in here, it still won't amount to a hill of beans.
In fact it *helps* me to be able to be seen opposite the three
of you, because you pretty much personify some of my case
for a Fast Track.
Fast Track needs to eliminate the No threat and take those
like you three out of the process in the coercive or control sense.
Newbies and others ought to be able to tell you you're acting
like pricks, knowing that isn't news to 90% of the people on
news.groups, and then just ignore you. That PNP acronym I
cited a while back stood for Prick Neutering Protocols. That's
a big part of Fast Track, to take the pricks out of the process.
Now of course we can go at each other's throats here some
more. I can be especially prickish myself when dealing with
pricks. But I'm not going to spend much more time on it. I
recognize that many go into Prick Mode on occasion, and
that you guys are capable of being out of that mode. The
reason I didn't mention it before now is because I was trying
not to inflame things. They're inflamed now anyway and you
three are all here in the thread, so we might as well recognize
reality: Prick Mode is responsible for much of the acrimony
that happens around here. It'll never get any better unless
we neuter Prick Mode.
Maybe Fast Track will do it, or maybe Dan moderating a
news.groups.preliminary can bury it sufficiently, but it has
to be dealt with. To generalize Jeff's point about Jay being
the number 1 match that sets things off, I would say that's
not the case because Jay isn't *always* in Prick Mode. The
number 1 match is Prick Mode itself, the frequent and in
some cases near-perpetual Prick Mode of a few trolls, and
Prick Mode combined with the outright news.groupie
cluelessness that just happens on occasion.
You guys have your style, and you aren't about to change.
You're not my audience. When you're in Prick Mode, you're
one of the problems that needs solving and that I'm trying to help
solve. I absolutely defend your right, as Joshua would defend
mine, to say what you want and even inflame things as you
do. But I want the coercive effect that can have to be taken
out of the process. Trollish pricks are an insignificant dime
a dozen on Usenet, everywhere except here where people
have No votes. If that isn't changed, news.groups will become
an ever-stronger magnet for the trollish pricks because they're
impotent everywhere except here. This place and this system
are designed to be Trollish Prick Heaven.
Now, an olive branch. Take your best shots at me in response
to this. Continue with the rival FAQ if you must. (Jay seems to
think it was funny, I was hoping for funnier when I saw Joshua
trying there, so I think you can do better but it's a lot to ask to
have you three work on elevating my profile by opposing me.)
In the end though, I submit to you it's a waste of your time and
you'd probably prefer not to be marginalized as anyone would.
And I don't want to continue that tone beyond this.
So I'll start by apologizing to all three of you for marginalizing
and labelling you in this post. You get that relatively free shot
now. Then I propose not to engage either of you contentiously,
and instead keep it civil and productive. The three of you do
have useful knowledge. I'm sure you know a lot more about
many things than I do. I'd like to be able to incorporate valid
points you make in the Fast Track proposal.
But this issue of spam definition illustrates that we have to
make an effort to not escalate things. This started out with
some useful comments from Jay at least, and Joshua was
one of the "35,000 group" posters. Now, apparently because
of frustation at your not being able to crack the logic of my
spam argument, it got childish with the assertions and then
escalated.
If I'm wrong, then fine take another stab at the logic and I'll
try not to rub it in. In fact I'll make an offer: crack the logic,
and I'll change the FAQ. But start thinking independently
for chissakes. If the tail bastion's spam definition is so
bloody correct, why can KalElFan come in, discredit it in
a few posts, and reduce you all to pathetic assertions that
you're right because the tail bastion believes in the inadequate
definition? That's a tail wagging itself.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KryptonCN
>
>A. When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they waste
>the valuable resources of all the readers of those groups (1)
>
>B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
>
>C. Off-topic articles to newsgroups are spam (3)
Faulty logic. You're missing a step in the argument. You
still need to show how wasting the "valuable resources of
all the READERS" is a "misuse of NET resouces". These two
phrases are not axiomatically equivalent, so you must prove
that the first implies the second. The proof of C is
incomplete until you have done so.
Jeff (Proof is my life -- mathematics, you know) Sykes
If I'm posting via this address, it's because I'm unable to do so
through my ISP. If you wish to contact me privately about anything
I say in this post, please do so at sy...@ms.uky.edu.
Bill Cole
>KalElFan wrote:
>> 3.2.3 Why Do I See a Lot of Allbery, But Not Tale?
>> Tale prefers to remain above the fray, and it's better for the system
>> that he does.
>
>I suspect there are more than a few people who would disagree with the
>latter part of this sentence, and would very much like to see tale
>posting in news.groups. Again, 'some think' before 'it's better' may
>be good.
I'm ambivalent about this. Maybe for something claiming to have The
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, it is best to stay non-committal on
this, but I would argue that it demonstrably is a good thing that Tale is
not taking part in the day-to-day discussions of individual proposals
here. The effect is that he cannot get dragged into what are often petty
arguments and when he does post, people pay attention. On the other hand,
it is a good thing to have Russ active here as a sort of Prime Minister.
It may not always be clear how much (if at all) Russ speaks for Tale and
how much Russ speaks purely for Russ, and that is probably a good thing.
On the other hand, Tale's general apparent non-presence can be a bit
confusing to new readers of the group because it doesn't explain the basis
of the whole system, that news admins place their trust in Tale. I suspect
that the whole system is more well-understood in the UK than in the US,
because they have experience with a titular top official who is removed
from politics.
>Also, I don't know if he prefers to remain above the fray, has no time
>to be involved in the fray, or what. Unless he's told you his
>preferences, you may wish to avoid stating them for him.
I think it is safe to say that Tale chooses to stay out of active
discussion. I recall him saying just that in an NPR interview back when
some controversial group vote managed to catch RL news interest. ( I think
it was 1996, and the group was the "white music" one) I have been reading
news.groups since 1992 and have never seen a time when Tale has been
really active.
>
>> 3.2.7 Why Don't I Just Send This $#@% Control Message?
>> Go ahead if you must, but just know that:
>>
>> a. It doesn't work. Regular fixes are sent out and will quickly undo
>> your terrorism; and
>
>It's only 'terrorism' if a control message for a Big 8 group is sent as
>if from tale or some other authority figure (forged). I could send a
>single control message for news.admin.net-abuse.bite-me and it wouldn't
>be terrorism. The group wouldn't get very far since tale would rmgroup
>it, because it didn't go through the standard process (or because smart
>news admins only accept PGP-authenticated Big 8 messages from tale).
>But it's not terrorism; it's just a probable waste of my time.
Right. There are mass control forgeries that amount to terrorism because
of their forged nature and their scale, but one honestly formed control
message for a Big 8 group isn't terrorism, it's just a not very bright
waste of time. FWIW, I don't think Tale will even bother rmgrouping a
group which someone else newgroups with an unforged control message.
The problem with foirged control messages is that many sites do not or
cannot run automated PGP verification of control messages, and are still
automating Big 8 controls based on easily forged headers. It's easy to
call the admins of such sites incompetent, but it's as if for years there
were never any car thefts, and no door locks on cars as a result, and
suddenly people started stealing cars. It would be hard to blame the
people with old lockless cars for the theft.
>You know, you really should rename this document 'Intro to Big 8
>Newsgroup Creation' or something similar.
Definitely. It needs to be more clear that this applies in the Big 8 and
nowhere else. One more document making clear that the n.a.n/news.groups
process applies ONLY to the Big 8 can only help.
>> 3.2.8 But Isn't Changing The Consensus Process Too Difficult?
>> Section 4 of this FAQ describes a Fast Track process that doesn't yet
>> exist but that could dramatically improve the current process by
>> supplementing it.
>
>And I agree with what Kate posted last week, that you shouldn't include
>non-standard processes in a FAQ about a well established process. Go
>ahead and start a thread about your fast track proposal. If lots of
>people like it and offer constructive suggestions, ship a revised
>proposal to tale. That's the only way such a change will be
>implemented. Since it could take months, if ever, to get such a
>change agreed to, you're wasting space in this document by including
>fast track within it.
Wasting space AND undercutting any hope for the document being considered
a good reference document. Others have tried advocacy by FAQ before, and
it consistently results in the author being widely considered a kook. You
cannot afford any expansion of reasons for you to be seen as a kook.
>> 3.3.1 What's With These Names, Names, Names?
>> These names, names, names are a major cause of contentious discussion
>> and even flaming on news.groups. Proponents and supporters of a group
>> typically like their proposed name, news.groups folk are typically
>> very concerned about the namespace issue
>
>Would you care to supply an overview of your perceptions of the
>'namespace issue' here?
Defenitely needed, since it is not well-explained anywhere.
There are good functional reasons for namespace gripes, and there are also
pedantic scholastic arguments over namespace issues here that do not take
into account the variations in specific cases. Ignoring 'namespace theory'
as a proponent is hazardous to the health of your proposal, but if you
have a strong and non-personal argument for why a name that offends
namespace pedants is a Good Thing you can make it and convince at least
some people here. If a proponent does not have such a rationale for
'innovative' naming, listening calming and considering the point of view
of the theoreticians is a wise course of action. The theoreticians of
Usenet naming are mostly people who have seen innovative mistakes made in
the past.
>
>> 3.3.2 Can I Campaign?
>> Yes, in fact many would say that you must campaign if you hope to win
>> the vote. Campaigning is best done through e-mail, to your known or
>> likely supporters. Web sites can also be used, as well as signature
>> lines in your posts.
>
>This section is problematic, since undisclosed email and website
>publicity about the CFV is on that edge of inappropriate campaigning,
>at least in my opinion. Better to encourage .sigvertising while
>participating in related groups.
Well, yes, but... umm... see...
There is not a good consensus on what constitutes good and bad
campaigning. It is hard to argue that making sure that likely users of a
group know of the proposal is a bad thing. On the other hand, any
encouragement of people who are not going to use the group to vote yes is
a Very Bad Thing.
IMHO the best practice is careful selection of relevant fora for posting
very brief pointers to news.groups, and MAYBE a news: URL pointing the the
RFD or CFV. Voting instructions anywhere but in the formal CFV post are
just plain WRONG and IMNSHO posting the CFV yourself outside of the n.a.n
moderation system is also WRONG. People unable to use the group should not
vote, and people unwilling to do a little work to find out more info about
the proposal should not vote.
>> (ii) Clear in stating that only those with Usenet access, and who
>> intend to at least read the group on occasion, should vote for the
>> group.
>
>But this is very good.
Essential.
This is why voting instructions outside of Usenet are Just Plain Wrong.
>> 3.3.7 Why Can't I Send Out the Ballot?
>> Well, this is a good question. Many feel it's an artificial way of
>> keeping the Yes support down.
>
>What?
What? indeed...
Don't send out the ballot, filled or unfilled, because that encourages
people who are likely not to use the group in any event to vote on it
anyway. Voting on a group should be about as much work as subscribing to a
group, reading it, and posting to it, NOT any easier.
>> When you get to news.groups, be prepared for confrontation with those
>> who oppose your group. They may be people from outside news.groups
>> who are interested in your subject, or people within news.groups. Few
>> proposals sail through unopposed, no matter how well thought out they
>> are.
>
>'... because those with a different perspective may bring up ideas the
>proponents hadn't thought of. Listening to constructive criticism with
>an open mind should result in a more successful process.' It's not
>because people want new proposals to fail, at least not in my opinion.
Well, maybe, but opposition on the principle of opposing everything has a
certain constituency.
One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to
provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally
uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of
the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and
doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every
proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots. News.groups is
Usenet's Bureau of Sabotage. [1]
>> Most proposals generate at least 30-50 No votes, which means you
>> need 150 Yes to have a good chance of passing the group. Since you
>> need two Yes votes for every one No once you get beyond the 200-100
>> threshold, be especially wary of generating a massive No vote. If you
>> get contentious, try to make a point that you're getting contentious
>> with only a few people and not everyone in news.groups, or everyone
>> who may hold a reasonable opinion.
>
>This is kinda adversarial, and has that 'what will it take to win' tone
>that you received some criticism for during the Superman proposal.
Right, and that's a counter-productive angle.
I think the best phrase above is "be especially wary of generating a
massive No vote." and it may be all you should say. Proposals that become
a referendum on the depth of fanaticism of the proponents are mishandled
proposals. If you make people dislike you during the discussion phase, you
will lose and you may lose unjustly. If you generate nothing worse than
respectful disagreement you are likely to win if you really should win.
News.groupies who disagree with you but respect you are a lot less likely
to vote no than people who you have insulted instead of rationally
discussed issues with.
It is also a good tactic to concede to reasoned constructive criticism on
everything that will not completely ruin the group. Remember that 6 months
down the road, what will rule the group is not the name or the charter,
but the users (and if the group is moderated, the moderator).
>> 4. FAST TRACK
>> 4.1 What's Fast Track?
>> Fast Track is a second track process that does not yet exist, but
>> which is being worked on.
>
>This should come out of the FAQ until such time as it's a reality.
And should be very carefully considered. Speed is not inherently a good thing.
--
Bill Cole
Bill Cole
jkra...@swarthmore.edu (Joshua Kramer) wrote:
>*Windows newsreaders are so complicated. It's so clear on the mac side.
>Mac-Soup for offline, MT for online.*
Well, Hogwasher for the Mac is a pretty good one too.
Just causing trouble...
--
Bill Cole
KalElFan
In article <19981103095644...@ng87.aol.com>,
kryp...@aol.com (KryptonCN) writes:
>Faulty logic. You're missing a step in the argument. You
>still need to show how wasting the "valuable resources of
>all the READERS" is a "misuse of NET resouces".
Here was the longer context from the article, illustrating
that these two concepts are not just firmly linked, but
the whole basis for the "spam is bad" consensus that
justifies spam filters:
"...the idea is that people can use their valuable time, energy,
and net access reading material that is of interest to them in
groups designated for those topics. When people post off-topic
articles to newsgroups, they waste the valuable resources of all
the readers of those groups, and make it harder to find those
articles that would be of interest. Anyone who excessively
multi/cross posts is invariably posting where the message is
off-topic (if there is something that everyone should see, there
is a newgroup for that, news.announce.important), and therefore
misusing Usenet and abusing the readers of those newgroups
where the article was off-topic."
So not only does this article recognize the link, but it *relies*
on the abuse of readers' resources to make its whole case.
Multi-posting (spam in their definition) is bad *because* it's
invariably off-topic and wastes users' resources.
The point your making is the same kind as the other poster:
that I can't prove "waste of resources" means the same thing
to everyone. Granted, I can't prove it, because it's a matter
of opinion. Some may say "Spam is great. It doesn't waste
my resources or the Net's. Prove to me that people really
dislike it before you start spam-filtering it."
But it's a stipulated-to opinion in this discussion that spam
is bad, what-ever it is. It isn't bad because it has a Breidbart
Index of 10, or because it uses net resources because lots
of things do. It's bad because the consensus is it abuses
*readers*. If any of the numerical-only people want to come
in here and disavow that, then everything crumbles. Spam
is okay.
So the waste of reader resources is, dare I say, the "moral
compass" here. When you waste readers' resources with off-
topic posting, that's bad and you are misusing net resources
when you do it. The "proof" is stipulated to based on consensus,
unless any of us wants to start advocating spam.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <slrn73u7k...@manifold.algebra.com>,
ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) writes:
>What is and what is not offtopic is all in the eyes of the beholder.
*Exactly*. JUST_AS_SPAM_IS. This is why the tail brigade's
attempts to define it "numerically only" is and always was doomed to
fail, and why off-topic posting has to be *one* element of the definition.
"Spam" must allow for a judgment call -- the eye of the beholder --
because it's the beholder consensus that makes spam bad in the
first place. So this is not a logic point in dispute. As I said in the
response to Jeff, I acknowledge that it isn't *provable*, but no one
here wants to argue spam is a good thing and that's where they
end up if "wasting reader resources doesn't matter."
(In fact, as I point out, "wasting reader resources" is at the core
of all of this. That's the *reason* spam is bad.)
>* B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
>
>Second mistake...
Well, you can mainly take it up with Steven because I was working
with his words here. But again, I don't dispute that there *can* be
a difference of opinion. There should be room for that when it comes
to any definition. At least we seem to have a general agreement
that spam isn't spam, and spam isn't bad, simply because it has
a BI index of 10.
>>* Read it and weep, howl, curse, throw a tantrum, whatever.
>
>I choose to smile.
Well, so do I, because the only way to challenge the proof is to
destroy or disavow the whole anti-spam moral foundation of the
argument. If spam is bad, then you must accept that content
factors into its definition because the *content* of spam is one
of the things users find onerous about it.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
Bill, thanks for the comments. Generally, I don't think there's
much I can do because the balance issue is important. You
may think this a FAQ designed simply to tell readers about
the process, which is why you agree with retitling it. But
it's really about making this place work better by having better
informed new people. IMO, you can't do that without directly
addressing the things that lead to the problems.
Now, if you believe that the problems are all because of the
proponents and supporters not understanding the system,
the FAQ may not be ideal. But again, I see it as a balance
and I have made it clear, for example, that Fast Track doesn't
exist yet.
I will review all these points again though, the next time I
update the FAQ.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Boris Schaefer
| In article <363E03B9...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
| <kpa...@ford.com> writes:
<snip>
| >'Tis your FAQ and all, but you might more honestly say 'this
| >author views' rather than 'many view'.
|
| It's my opinion, I think quite supported by the evidence, that
| many do view this place very negatively.
Many others think news.groups was quite helpful to their proposal.
There are also a great many proposals, that don't undergo the big
discussion thing. Proponents of such proposals most certainly don't
view news.groups very negatively.
I think your opinion is skewed due to the superman proposal and the
fact, that some proposals generate a HUGE discussion, that overwhelms
news.groups. While these huge discussions are going on, there are
frequently other proposals, that go virtually unchallenged (they all
would probably also pass virtually unchallenged, if there weren't the
HUGE discussion of the other RFD).
| But on the other side, I was making it clear that the system
| does suck, has many flaws, and by all means let's try to fix
| them. When you suggest taking out the Fast Track section, for
| example, that's not something I would do because it's integral
| to this balance. Same with this advertise-in-your-sig only
| business and a few of your other points.
I don't see the point in including Fasttrack in the FAQ. It's an FAQ
for new proponents. Proponents usually aren't interested in changing
the process. They want a successful proposal. It helps nothing, but
increasing confusion, to include the section in the FAQ.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller
than the both put together."
Boris Schaefer
<snip>
| The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
| filters and algorithms. What you suggest above is actually a very
| bad thing in my view. Telling a user that spam has a Breidbart
| Index of 10 might only encourage them to make posts just under
| the Index, thinking there's nothing wrong with it. Better to give
| them a more realistic and less arbitrary definition of spam, and
| let the arbitrary tail algorithms just do their job.
You wouldn't have to tell them, that spam is everything BI > 10 (or
20, which I think is the correct number for the Big8). You could tell
them, that spam is `the essentially same thing many times' (I think it
was Joshua who said this in some other post). BTW, I think the latter
is the correct definition of spam. Everything with BI > 20 is spam,
that will be cancelled and as such a special kind of spam. Things
with a BI < 20 *may* be spam too.
I don't understand, why you just don't say what spam is and also give
a small definition UBE, UCE and velveeta. You could also add a small
note, that many people refer to UBE, UCE and velveeta as spam.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble."
-- Alan Perlis
Boris Schaefer
| Now, you can run through hoops here to try to protect your
| numerical-only definition if you must, but the fact is that content
| does matter. Even Kramer's definition -- the *same* thing posted
| multiple times -- explicitly recognizes content as a factor. It's
| spam only if the content is the same, under his definition. If
| I wanted to get around it, I could alter content ever so slightly
| and do 1,000 posts. So he'd have to move to a "substantially
| similar" test which again gets to content.
And he would be right. SPAM has to pass the "substantially similar"
test, not the "exactly the same thing" test.
The problem with your definition is, that simple off-topic postings
can be called spam.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to
be appointed to do the work.
Boris Schaefer
| Well, this had nothing to do with my point that the dog (users)
| gets to define spam, not the tail (spam filter algorithms).
The spam filter algorithm never defined spam. Users defined spam and
then spam filter algorithms were written to filter out spam according
to the user made definition.
| But for what it's worth, I'd agree that deliberate multiple postings
| of the same otherwise on-topic post would be spam. But you could
| argue that post becomes off-topic when it's made a second, third
| time, etc., within a short period, because the multiple posts are
| irrelevant to the readers of the group.
You wouldn't win that argument. Something that is on-topic is
on-topic, regardless of the number of times it's been posted.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
The luck that is ordained for you will be coveted by others.
Bill Cole
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>In article <363DE383...@ford.com>, Kathy Pascoe
><kpa...@ford.com> writes:
>
>>If those ten posts are the same post sent separately to each
>>group, they are indeed spam. Specifically, postings with a
>>Breidbart Index (the sum of the square roots of all the groups
>>to which an article was posted) of 10... A BI of 10 wouldn't
>>result in cancellations, but would result in the articles being
>>filtered out of many newsfeeds.
>
>Kathy, I'm hearing you but you're not hearing me. I not only
>understand that news and mail administrators have tools and
>guidelines they use to filter spam, I wholeheartedly support it.
>The less spam the better. It would be nice if their tools weren't
>so imprecise as to catch non-spam in their net on occasion,
>but I'm even willing to pay that price so we have less spam.
It is abundantly obvious that you haven't got the slightest depth in your
understanding of the term "spam" as it applies to Usenet.
I suggest that you investigate WHY the term was first applied (in 1994)
and WHY the numerical systems were created in the manner they were.
BI-based spam filters only catch spam. The ones which use BI>20 as a
threshhold miss a lot of spam, but even at BI>5 they won't catch anything
other than spam. News spam is an abuse of the network, specifically
posting substantially the same message too many times. It does not matter
what it is that is being posted, or whether it happens to be on-topic, and
it is a completely different sort of abuse to make off-topic posts. By
it's nature, spam almost always ends up being off-topic someplace it is
posted, but not every off-topic post is spam.
Someone else posted that everyone else in this thread is using various
descriptions of a cow and you are calling it a horse. That's not quite
right. More analogous is that you seem to think the test of being a cow is
whether you can milk the beast. Worse, you are claiming to educate a
group of beef ranchers and goatherds on this issue. We know damn well that
not all cows give milk all the time and that goat are NOT cows, even
though they can provide the full range of dairy products.
>But there are two issues here that you just may not be able
>to see, having associated yourself with this line of thinking for
>so long.
>
>1. Spam Filter Tools and Mechanisms Do Not Define Spam
No, but the advent of spam is what defined the spam filter tools and
mechanisms. Off-topic posts have existed since the dawn of Usenet, but no
one seriously tried to fight abuse until the advent of spamming, because
spam is a worse problem than off-topic posts or even commercial posts
which are not spam.
>But let's remember what the dog and tail are here. Spam has a
>negative connotation. People dislike it. They don't dislike it
>because it has a Breidbart Index of 10. They dislike it because
>they view it as the electronic equivalent of junk mail: someone
>trying to sell them everything from get-rich-quick schemes to
>sex services. And so users have a problem with spam. Think
>of that problem as the dog.
You are clumping together all forms of misuse of Usenet together as spam
and redefining the term to exempt misuse you want to be alloweds. Sorry,
but that's not going to fly.
The use of the word came about because of the features measured by the BI.
Maybe people today are more annoyed by the often conjugate features of
sp[am, such as it being off-topic or commercial or a tool of scam artists
of various sorts, but those are not essential features of spam. The first
use of the term was in fact to describe a post which was completely
non-commercial, and if it had been correct in its prediction could have
been argued to be on-topic everywhere by anyone with as shallow an
understanding of news as you possess.
(you want details? Go do your own research.)
>Users (the dog) now get their tail (the technology) to swat the
>spam. The high-tech dog tail ends up with algorithms to do that.
>Good for the tail, it's serving the dog well, which is its job. The
>algorithms aren't perfect, but they're good.
Right. When set to a high enough BI, BI-based spam filters identify as
spam nothing but spam because the BI was designed to identify nothing but
spam as spam was defined by the people who defined the term spam in
regards to news. The BI-based filters in fact usually operate with a high
enough threshhold that they inherently do not identify all spam.
>>Spam is numerical. Off-topic postings are not necessarily
>>numerical.
>
>I'm saying *both* are a factor, numerical and topical context.
>The tail algorithms can only effectively deal with the numerical
>aspect, but it's a mistake to assume that changes the definition
>of spam and makes it only numerical.
Defining spam numerically is the original definition, not a change. For a
post to be spam, it must be substantially identical to other posts made at
about the same time.
Again, you need to look at WHY the term was first applied to this specific
abuse of news, and not just at your own idea of what constitutes spam.
Here's a clue that you obviously lack: it has more to do with Monty Python
than Hormel.
>>You would do a favor to new users reading your FAQ if you
>>introduce the terminology the way news and mail administrators
>>have come to use them. Having a common understanding of
>>terms is a very useful thing.
>
>The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
>filters and algorithms. What you suggest above is actually a very
>bad thing in my view. Telling a user that spam has a Breidbart
>Index of 10 might only encourage them to make posts just under
>the Index, thinking there's nothing wrong with it. Better to give
>them a more realistic and less arbitrary definition of spam, and
>let the arbitrary tail algorithms just do their job.
There's a good point in that, but I think you are failing to understasnd
it yourself. There is no fixed BI that defines spam. BI>20 is the most
widely accepted measure for *cancellable* spam, but you cannot have spam
with BI<2 and in between there is a lot of room for spam and non-spam. In
fact in that range you do have to look at the specifics that roll into the
BI as well as possible reasons for multi-posting a specific message to say
whether as specific set of posts constitute justifiable spam or not.
However, a message starts smelling pink when the second copy gets posted.
If you are going to post the same thing twice you had best have a good
excuse, and if you post it three times it had better be a very compelling
reason. If a set of posts get to BI=10, very few people who recognize the
concept of net-abuse at all will not consider you a spammer no matter what
your self-justification is.
--
Bill Cole
Shane Travis
: But here's where I try to explain my style. I plead guilty to
: sometimes *really* rubbing it in as a discussion escalates and
: I (yawn) end up winning.
Must be tough being so right all the time, and having to put up with the
ignorance of others who have been here longer than you.
: [T]he main reason I do this is because I don't
: *want* people out there to challenge or dismiss what I write
: lightly.
Choosing to write 300 lines instead of 30 (even if you think it *is*
clearer) is the fastest way I can think of to get people to stop reading
what you write, dismissing it out of hand as 'not worth the effort'.
As was once said by Pascal (or Samuel Johnson? E-mail me and help me out
if you know), "I'm sorry to have written you such a long letter, but I
hadn't time to write a shorter one." (Nearly) Anyone can *eventually*
make a point if they use 50 000 words; the genius is making that same
point in 500.
: I want to have a reputation that if you get into a logical
: debate with KalElFan, you risk ending up with your cyberspace
: ego in tatters.
KEF, it's impossible to *get* into a 'logical' debate with you, because
you ignore the relevant points of the opposition, belittle the small
mistakes that they (and everyone) makes, and redefine the ground rules
when the current ones no longer suit you. That's not logic, that's
bombast and demagoguery -- and you *are* good at that.
: Now, do I do this because I'm a mean and nasty person? Well,
: of course. :-) (1)
Aaah... the smiley-face. That makes it all better.
: Do I do it because I have an infuriating and
: invincible cyberspace ego? Sure. (1)
^^^^^^^^^^
YM 'impenetrable'. HTH.
: I *want*, very much, to discourage people from challenging me
: lightly.
Or discussing things with you at all, apparently.
: (1) That having been said, I do have the big ego, but I don't do
: it to be mean and nasty.
[snip]
: I hope neither they, nor anyone else, gets too
: worked up or offended by it. It's just KalElFan shtick, and I
: don't mean anything personally hurtful by it.
"I don't see why calling you a kike/faggot/jack-booted stormtrooper/
nigger/ignoramus/whore is offensive to you. It's just the way I talk.
*You* are the one taking offence by it -- I didn't *mean* anything by it."
I had thought that you at least had the courage of your convictions to
calla spade a spade, and not use the childish, "I was just swinging my
arms and you got in the way. Not *my* fault you got hit!" defence. If
you're going to insult someone, just do it; don't do it and then try and
pretend it was unintentional, involuntary, 'just a speech pattern', 'all
in fun', or 'your fault for being so sensitive'. Once, that might fly.
We've seen it from you more than once.
Shane Travis | The most wasted day
tra...@sedsystems.ca | is that in which we have not laughed.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Sebastian Chamfort
Jeff J. Wilson
>
[massive snip]
First I want you to know that I didn't read your whole post. I
skimmed the first three paragraphs and didn't see any pertinent
information so I figured the rest was the same. I skimmed over the
last paragraph though and as it repeats some things you wrote in other
threads I thought I'd give you my take on it here.
>
> If I'm wrong, then fine take another stab at the logic and I'll
> try not to rub it in. In fact I'll make an offer: crack the logic,
> and I'll change the FAQ.
Except that this argument isn't something that you can apply logic
to...it's a definitional argument. In this case a word that was
defined by the technical community of Usenet has been changed when it
got out to the non-technical community. Is that bad? I don't know.
It's inevitable that words change meanings over time, but it shouldn't
happen too fast or we won't be able to talk to each other. You can
bet that the Usenet technical crowd isn't going to change their
definition of the word when they use it, so you end up with two groups
using different definitions of the word.
You do your readers a disservice if you don't at least let them know
that there is another more strict definition out there and that is the
one being used if they need to talk to their ISP staff.
[snip]
--
Jeff J. Wilson [ jeff....@unisys.com ]
...speaking only for myself
Vanguard of the 13er generation.
Bill Cole
In article <19981102223930...@ngol07.aol.com>,
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>In article <71leou$gs7$1...@links.magenta.com>,
>s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) writes:
>
>>*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
>
>It's your definition, not the definition. Kramer says spam is the
>same thing posted many times. He doesn't attempt to modify
>it with excessive.
Is English your first language?
Joshua also did not define what constitues "many" but maybe you missed
that. The idea that you can draw a semantic line between "excessive
multiposting" and "posting the same thing many times" is mind-boggling.
>I didn't attempt a formal definition, but take
>the position that *both* numerical and topical considerations
>have to enter into it. It's a judgment call based on the facts.
>Kathy was saying the BI index determines it.
I do not speak for Kathy, but what I read was that the same thing posted
10 times is spam, AND that spam is numerical AND that BI=10 is definitely
spam.
Maybe you need to point me at something more specific, but I read nothing
in her post (or anyone's post) saying that BI determines spam
definitively, and I am pretty sure (with an unfair advantage) that Kathy
did not mean to make such a statement. BI expresses one measure of
spamminess, and there are some extremes of BI (like, 10) at which there is
no question about whether a spam is a Bad Thing, but I doubt anyone will
argue that a fixed BI measurement defines a hard line between spam and not
spam, or acceptable spam and unacceptable spam. The BI is not made that
way. Most people who understand and appreciate the usefulness of the BI
also recognize the fact that it has limitations in that it cannot define a
hard fine line between right and wrong.
> Heck, later on
>you give yet another definition of spam:
>
>>Misuse of net resources makes something spam.
You need to read more carefully and interpret what you read in context.
Mr. Davis is not making that a complete definition of spam.
Misuse of net resources is a key feature of all unjustifiable spam, and it
appears to me that Mr. Davis is equating "spam" with what I'd call
"unjustifiable spam," and while I don't completely agree with that, I
don't think that extremely fine distinction is worth debating.
>And you even use that in one instance to mandate crossposting.
Why, yes. crossposting and multiposting are different things, have very
different resource utilization, and have very different effects on the
'spamminess' of a group of posts. Multiposting is spam, and if its greater
use of net resources than crossposting isn't somehow justified, it is a
wrong way to post. Crossposting is only of minimal impact on physical
resources, and when abusive is more of a social ill than a misuse of
network resources. Consider the analogy of foul language versus littering.
>A post to two groups is spam unless there's a good reason why
>it can't be crossposted.
No, it's spam, whatever the reason. It may be justifiable spam. Of course,
referring to justifiable spam as such is not often worthwhile.
>Presumably a newsreader that can't
>crosspost would be a good reason.
You presume far too much.
That's a positively lousy reason. Such a program is not suitable for use
as a posting tool. If that's all one has as a posting tool, one needs to
refrain from posting anything that should be crossposted.
> So 13 million AOLers are
>off the hook, but a poster who's unaware that his software will
>crosspost is a spammer.
I'm not sure what the reference to AOL refers to (do they really still not
provide a crossposting newsreader?!?) but anyone who multiposts because of
software limitations on crossposting or because of ignorance is spamming.
>In effect, user sophistication with
>software determines spam in this instance, unless you think
>ignorance is a good excuse.
Nope. No one ever forced anyone else to post, much less post to many
groups with shoddy software. The solution to having shoddy software is
getting better software. The individual who is ignorant of the shoddiness
of his software is as much a spammer as the person who is ignorant of what
his software can do.
>And of course two posts are not many, so none of that meets
>Kramer's definition. And we continue to go round and round,
>completing the circle, because that article you posted said this:
>
>>When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they
>>waste the valuable resources of all the readers of those
>>groups
>
>Which means under the previous quote above that off-topic
>posting ( = waste of resources) makes something spam. So
>we're full circle, and you're supporting my definition now!
Read again, read for meaning. Buy a dictionary and take another class in
English for Aliens.
>You're trying too had, and unnecessarily hard, to deny that
>content is *a* factor. No one said a commercial post is by
>definition spam, or an off-topic post is by definition spam. And
>no one should be saying that duplicate posts are by definition
>spam, because it's too simplistic. One test is not enough.
One test is not enough in all instances to determine if a spam is a Bad Thing.
One test such as BI or the simple number of substantially identical posts
can be enough to overwhelm any possible attempt at justifying a spam.
Where that point is can be debated, but you would find very few people who
would say any spam is justifiable past BI=10, except for the kooks who
deny that any spam is bad.
If a message is posted more than once, and there is not some reason why
that specific message had to be posted more than once, it is an abusive
spam. How one can make that justification is going to be dependent on who
you want to convince, but most people here and most news admins and most
ISP abuse/AUP/TOS referees are not going to accept "it was on-topic," "My
software can't crosspost," or "I don't know how to crosspost" as a
justification for any but the most narrow spams.
>>Your FAQ for new users should not be misinforming them
>>that "spam" is defined by it being offtopic.
>
>In *part* by it being off-topic. If you want to refute it, you'll have
>to deal with the closed circle above, and the specific examples.
>Ten "ooh-spam-me-baby.com" posts versus ten on-topic
>Superman posts to ten newsgroups where that is on-topic.
They are both spam, both suitable for dropping on the floor. IMHO both
should be considered cancellable as well, but they wouldn't be because
spam-cancels proved too much of a waste themselves before the cancellers
got around to lowering the cancel threshhold.
Both would be dropped by my server,
>
>Kramer wanted more than 10, which I guess means he accepts
>the Superman 10-post example. Anyway, he wanted 20. I'll give
>him and you 100 or more. Consider a proposal to rename every
>group in the rec.arts.* hierarchy either arts.* or rec.* A generalized
>RFD is posted or crossposted to all affected groups.
It would not be. Such a proposal would not make it past the pre-pre-RFD
phase, and trying that sort of a spam would doom the proposal and the
proponent to eternal kook-legend status.
In the surreal event that such a proposal made it to a real RFD stage, the
place where such a change proposal would be properly posted would be
news.announce.important, and possibly rec.misc.
>Now, you can run through hoops here to try to protect your
>numerical-only definition if you must, but the fact is that content
>does matter. Even Kramer's definition -- the *same* thing posted
>multiple times -- explicitly recognizes content as a factor. It's
>spam only if the content is the same, under his definition. If
>I wanted to get around it, I could alter content ever so slightly
>and do 1,000 posts. So he'd have to move to a "substantially
>similar" test which again gets to content.
There is a huge difference between looking at content for similarity to
other posts and looking at content for topicality for a specific group or
collection of groups. Looking for similarity does not require reading for
meaning. I would think this would be a process you would understand.
--
Bill Cole
Remco Gerlich
>Again, I think the key thing here is that the numerical-only people
>are letting the tail wag the dog, and trying too hard to not have
>content be *a* factor. You're fighting a losing battle anyway,
>at least outside the tail bastion. Keep your definition if you
>want, inside that bastion which I'm not a part of but I'm glad
>exists. I'm just not going to perpetuate this neurotic compulsion
>some of it seems to have to dictate the definition of a term in
>a way that's long been incompatible with its popular meaning.
>
It's not a dog and tail story. The situation here is that many people
have called dogs "dogs" for a long time. Suddenly someone comes in,
needs a name for domestic animals, including cats and others, and
decided to call all of these "dogs".
He calls cats "dogs" after that, completely correctly in his definition.
But when the people who were around longer say "No, that's not a dog,
that's a cat!", he says "No, no, no! You're seeing it the wrong way
around; try to defy my logic!".
Spam is the same thing many times; which is also what can be cancelled,
if it's a big enough spamming. So that's a useful definition.
Making a new class of posts that includes off-topic ones isn't very
useful because they can't be cancelled for that reason. Calling the
unnecessary class of posts "spam", conflicting with the useful
definition, is quite ridiculous.
--
Remco Gerlich scarblac at dds dot nl
"This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs,
but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context."
KalElFan
In article <71nf5e$3c...@mongol.sasknet.sk.ca>,
travis@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE
(Shane Travis) writes:
>"I don't see why calling you a kike/faggot/jack-booted stormtrooper/
>nigger/ignoramus/whore is offensive to you. It's just the way I talk.
Okay, I just want everyone to know that this was a close judgment
call on how to answer. I actually had one of the more devastating
posts I've ever done fully written and ready to go, but at the last
minute decided to cut Shane slack here. Not sure why, but it's
probably because he mentioned he's a relatively recent father in
a post over in r.a.sf.s. So I'll mainly take the punch with one obvious
rebuttal and a comment.
I have never called anyone the above, except for the word "storm-
trooper" which I'll get to. The above terms would be direct, offensive
attacks, in some cases profoundly so. What I was talking about
here was the sentence about "educating" people. It was gloating
and rubbing it in that I was apologizing for, and my style at times
if anyone took that personally. I was not apologizing for direct
personal attacks like the above because I haven't used them.
The storm trooper reference is of course where all this comes from.
Shane is probably still irked because of that and the Holy Ghost
stuff over on r.a.sf.s. I've ignored him there, and mentioned that
the Holy Triumvirate are the first three people I've e-mail killfiled
in three years in cyberspace. So I guess he decided to come
over here and take a shot.
Anyway, Shane, I do not wish to engage you in discussion. You
indicated you had better things to do with your time in that recent
r.a.sf.s post, so it might be an idea if we stopped wasting each
other's time.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <363F4C90...@unisys.com>, "Jeff J. Wilson"
<jeff....@unisys.com> writes:
>You do your readers a disservice if you don't at least let them know
>that there is another more strict definition out there and that is the
>one being used if they need to talk to their ISP staff.
There are the two paragraphs that point this out now, although I
don't attempt to get into BI > 10 for example. But I do state that
some people have the strict definition, and it's based solely on
numbers.
I like the suggestion generally, though, of telling users that ISPs
may have spam filters based on numerical-only criteria. I may
include that, but I can't spend any more time on this right now.
What I'm considering for the next draft is a reorganization into
three FAQs, probably Level 1 and 2 Usenet, and then news.
groups. When I start posting the Fast Track stuff, I may also
move the Fast Track section into a separate FAQ, and that
will shorten the news.groups FAQ a bit, as well as meet a
few of the suggestions.
As to when I'd be doing that, well hopefully by the end of the
year. There's only so much time and I want to move on to the
Fast Track proposals plus a few things in r.a.sf.s through mid-
December. I may make some minor changes to these FAQs
depending on developments.
And I will look at any challenges to the spam definition logic
in that other post.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <slrn73ulp...@manifold.algebra.com>,
ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) writes:
>Again, your problem is with definitions. I do not necessarily disagree
>with your conclusions, but your argument is faulty because of faulty
>logic and definitions.
I don't see your logic issue except to the extent I've conceded:
some of the terms here are subjective. Subjectivity in terms does
not preclude logical argument.
In the response to Jeff's logic point, I showed that those whose
definition I've challenged have stipulated to the link in subjective
terms. Indeed, they rely on the link. So I don't have to prove it
unless they want to renounce the link. They won't, because
they'd be accepting the proposition that there is no consensus
(and Moral Compass :-)) basis to filter spam.
In the case of your two points, I don't see where you even made
the link to the logic as Jeff did. You've just said some of the
terms in the logical argument are subjective. My response
was yes, and they should be. Spam is subjective because
it's partly defined by content, which is also subjectively judged.
To those who still assert "No, spam is strictly numerical" I've
offered them the opportunity to prove it by challenging the A-
B-C logic. So far two people have tried, you and Jeff with both
making the same point basically: the subjectivity of terms in
A and B. Jeff pointed out the need to link them, which is the
logical argument, and I addressed it. The subjectivity itself is
not an issue after that.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Bill Cole
In article <19981102223933...@ngol07.aol.com>,
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>In article <363e48aa....@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
>
>>Sorry, wrong answer. If you posted your FAQ (Which doesn't
>>sell anyting) once/day for 20 days, you'd be SPAMMing.
>
>Well, this had nothing to do with my point that the dog (users)
>gets to define spam, not the tail (spam filter algorithms).
Fine. Since others may be unwilling to directly address this one, I will.
In relationship to the jargon of the net, users are on average extremely
ignorant and inexperienced, and will latch onto a memorable or just cute
wording and apply it to everything even remotely related.
Spam no more needs to be off-topic than Usenet is part of the Web, or than
AOL is the Internet. It doesn't matter that a large number of idiot users
have made these mistakes, it just ain't so. Spam is a lot of substantially
identical posts, no matter their content. Maybe you and a lot of similarly
ill-informed people want to redefine the term, but that does not make it
so. Usenet is not a democracy, and the terms coined by news admins and
plain old long-term news junkies cannot be redefined by a popular vote,
especially not one that includes anyone using AOL.
As you might be able to tell, I do not rely upon appealing to the masses
for my living. There may be a few people here who cannot say anything as
potentially offensive as the above for business reasons, and many others
who are just plain too nice [2] to say it. I am not nice.
>But
>for what it's worth, I'd agree that deliberate multiple postings of
>the same otherwise on-topic post would be spam. But you
>could argue that post becomes off-topic when it's made a
>second, third time, etc., within a short period, because the
>multiple posts are irrelevant to the readers of the group.
So now you are redefining off-topic?
Quaint. Orwell would be proud.
>
>>Your definition of SPAM is incorrect. Many are telling you this.
>
>And I'm educating them Gary. :-)
No, you are demonstrating how ineducable you really are, in case anyone
missed your last demo.
>Seriously, the discussion's been interesting but I'm not sure
>there's much point to continuing it. The discussion with Steven
>Davis I think illustrates that you *do* end up at content as *a*
>factor in making judgments about what spam is, and I agree
>that the *numerical* test is also a factor. I just haven't seen
>any defense of the numerical-only-test argument.
Umm, all I see in that thread is that you don't have a very strong grasp
of the English language or logic rendered in it, in addition to your poor
understanding of how news works.
No one in this thread has said that there is a simple numerical test for
spam that is not modifiable by special topical considerations. There ARE
numerical requirements (i.e. 2 or more copies) to meet any useful
definition of spam, and numerical metrics such as BI that in some ranges
can positively and irrefutable define a set of posts as spam.
There is NO circumstance where ONLY the argument that a post is on-topic
in every group it is posted to can justify its multiposting. That MIGHT be
justification to not cancel the post, or to not terminate the account of a
user who does it, or not waste too much time on the offense, but the
multipost is still spam. Justifying a BI=10 spam is impossible with most
people who matter in justifying a spam. Justifying a BI=5 spam may be
possible. Justifying a BI=2 spam is pretty easy, at least once.
>And I absolutely agree that the barn door was opened and the
>dogs and every other animal have long since left.
You have just mixed your metaphors beyond any recognizable pattern.
>Why not
>just focus on "cancelable spam" or some such rather than
>fight a definitional war you can never win?
Because there is already a clear definition of "cancelable spam" in place
and in use.
>The term spam
>has infiltrated the language in a way that can never be altered
>the way you'd like. Don't fight 'em, join 'em.
>
>KalE...@aol.com
>http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
You are preaching this to the wrong crowd. There is a fair amount of
overlap between news.groupies and the people who first christened
multiposting with the word "spam" in 1994. And with the people who will
generate a lot of trouble for anyone who spams by the numerical
definition. Topicality did not matter then, and it does not matter now.
FWIW, as unfair as it may seem, an admonition to "join" the new order
from anyone using AOL is also going to strike this audience as laughable
at best.
[1] Unreferenced footnote
[2] Kathy is an example of 'too nice' to say anything as directly abrasive
as this. Gary is not.
--
Bill Cole
Remco Gerlich
>"Spam" must allow for a judgment call -- the eye of the beholder --
>because it's the beholder consensus that makes spam bad in the
>first place. So this is not a logic point in dispute. As I said in the
>response to Jeff, I acknowledge that it isn't *provable*, but no one
>here wants to argue spam is a good thing and that's where they
>end up if "wasting reader resources doesn't matter."
>
Spam is bad because it wastes resources.
Off-topic posting is bad because it wastes resources.
This does NOT imply that spam is the same as off-topic posting.
Can you handle this?
Bill Cole
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>Bill, thanks for the comments. Generally, I don't think there's
>much I can do because the balance issue is important. You
>may think this a FAQ designed simply to tell readers about
>the process, which is why you agree with retitling it. But
>it's really about making this place work better by having better
>informed new people. IMO, you can't do that without directly
>addressing the things that lead to the problems.
Or in other words, it is grossly mistitled. This is not a FAQ list, it's a
catechism.
--
Bill Cole
Bill Cole
In article <bill-03119...@192.168.1.1>, bi...@scconsult.com (Bill
Cole) wrote:
>One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to
>provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally
>uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of
>the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and
>doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every
>proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots. News.groups is
>Usenet's Bureau of Sabotage. [1]
[1] The reference is to an entity that serves as a core plot device for
some of Frank Herbert's best work[2]. The founding axiom of the Bureau of
Sabotage was that the processes of an efficient government and society can
work too swiftly and efficiently, and tend to do a lot of bad things in
the process. A bit of well-placed sabotage to force everyone to think
twice is a good thing.
[2] Including the novel "Whipping Star" as well as at least one other
whose name eludes me at the moment and a number of short stories. Herbert
is better known for the Dune series.
--
Bill Cole
Bill Cole
<gke...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Rather than fight this trend, I would suggest that news admins adopt the
>term "cancellable spam" to refer to posts which flunk the BI test, and
>let the masses have their definition for "spam".
The problem with that is that there is more to spam than the increasingly
obsolete standard of BI>20=>cancellable spam and already a fine
terminology that covers all inappropriate posts[1]. Kal is attempting to
say that a spam (by the original definition) is not spam (by HIS
definition) and that non-spam (by the original definition) is spam (by HIS
definition).
>
>After all, the Oxford English Dictionary has just surrendered
>after years of struggle and approved splitting infinitives.
The crucial difference being that the OED came up with that "rule"
arbitrarily even though the offending practice was widespread common usage
goingt back as far as anyone can tell. The OED did not invent the
infinitive form, they did not administer its usage, and they had no means
of enforcing their rule. Unlike grumpy pedantic news admins, the editors
of the OED cannot shut off anyone's access to the English language for an
offense. A situation which is to loudly be applauded.
[1] Inappropriate posts.
--
Bill Cole
KalElFan
In article <71nph1$m79$5...@info.service.rug.nl>, scar...@dds.nl
(Remco Gerlich) writes:
>Making a new class of posts that includes off-topic ones isn't very
>useful because they can't be cancelled for [numerical] reasons.
If the dog says "content is *one* part of what determines spam",
and the tail says "but I can't filter content, that's not useful to me,
I need numerical algorithms", it doesn't follow that the dog should
change its definition. The tail should simply do its algorithm.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <71nst8$m79$6...@info.service.rug.nl>, scar...@dds.nl
(Remco Gerlich) writes:
>Say aloud:
>
>Spam is bad because it wastes resources.
>Off-topic posting is bad because it wastes resources.
>This does NOT imply that spam is the same as off-topic posting.
Right, which is why it's not my argument and has nothing to do
with the quote that led into it. See my response to Boris just
now. You need to focus on that A-B-C post plus my response
to Jeff.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <slrn73uu3...@manifold.algebra.com>,
ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) writes:
>You cannot challenge a definition by asking others to "prove it".
Not asking them too. I've taken *their* material and rationale on
this and shown that *their* material and rationale leads to off-topic
content being a factor. They have to get out of that somehow if
they want to maintain the integrity of their own definition *internally*.
Forget about my examples and the fact it's a losing battle anyway.
Even *they* have effectively conceded the point. This is what
the A-B-C post did.
Now, Jeff raised the one logical objection, and I addressed it.
Next move is up to those who want to maintain the integrity of the
numerical-only definition.
>You can suggest an alternative term, define it, and try to prove
>to us that that alternative term is more suitable for certain purposes.
Well, there's no need to at this point, because A-B-C shows that
the material and rationale on the other side leads them to my
definition. They just haven't recognized it, because the algorithm
itself is what's driving their desire to think of spam as just numerical.
They don't need to do that. Let the algorithm do its thing, and let
the definition be what even they recognize it is.
I've got to wind this down now, so I'm going to focus primarily on
challenges to A-B-C. Thanks to everyone for participating though,
and I will review this thread on the next FAQ update. (I'll also
put at the beginning of the one posted here that it will undergo
a redraft in a few months.)
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
>Or in other words, it is grossly mistitled. This is not a FAQ list, it's a
>catechism.
Balance and a brief Fast Track section at the end, that I've said may
end up in a separate FAQ later, do not a catechism make IMO.
Also, Bill, I just don't have the time to remake the arguments in
net-abuse where you've crossposted to. Sorry I'm ignoring you,
but there's just too much discussion going on now that would be
retread in my view. I've made the offer on A-B-C, so that's where
I'm going to focus. But it has to be either (1) a logic challenge
and I don't think there are any, or (2) a retreat on A and/or B in
some way which takes us down other paths I don't think the
other side wants to go. Unless I'm missing something, those
would be the only approaches you could take to crack it.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Jay Denebeim
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
>On 03 Nov 1998 12:45:00 GMT, in article
><19981103074501...@ngol01.aol.com>, kale...@aol.com (KalElFan)
>wrote:
>That's right, because your opinion doesn't matter. You'll soon be
>killfile fodder for many.
Yes, but not for the reasons he's probably thinking. Oh no. Not for
flaming, or trolling, or being an idiot. There's lots of people on
usenet with those attributes who get read.
Nope. People will killfile kalelcan for the cardinal sin of being a
flaming idiot that's BOREING. The man's posts are as dull as his
intellect.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Shankar Bhattacharyya
Belinda <eri...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Perhaps we should also let the masses post in HTML. And let all those
>Internet Exploder users continue to post follow ups -above- the original
>text.
Down with HTML posts. However, I am actively in favour of having
clueless posters post above the quoted text. That lets you find out
very early that the poster had nothing at all to say, except, perhaps,
"Yes, yes, yes, me too."
Particularly since they don't edit quoted text.
Can you imagine following this thread if a bunch of people started
quoting all of a KalElFan post before they said, "Me too?" It takes
long enough to follow this thread anyway.
- Shankar
Boris Schaefer
| Now, while I'm at it I'll address the Trolling Trio here: Joshua,
| Gary, and Jay. I was hoping Jay would show up with you
| other two.
|
| Let's first get the differences out of the way and on the record.
| I think all three of you are extremely bad for the environment
| here on news.groups. You're unrelentingly hostile, especially
| to newbies (I use that term in the new to news.groups sense).
| You're well known for this among news.groupies, but newbies
| don't know what to make of you and it often inflames things.
I've never perceived Joshua or Gary as hostile to others. You're the
only exception, I've noticed.
As to Jay, I believe he can defend himself, but I'll try for him
anyway. Just take a look at the recent rec.photo.marketplace.*
threads. Jay definitely wasn't hostile to those people. He even
offered his site as moderation host. He got hostile at Will-Jan
Markerink, when Willem-Jan began arguing as if he had a clue about
newsgroup creation, but in reality was absolutely clueless.
That's the core of Jay's "hostility". He gets hostile, when people
are behaving clueless, while acting as if they weren't.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!
Boris Schaefer
| I'm just not going to perpetuate this neurotic compulsion
| some of it seems to have to dictate the definition of a term in
| a way that's long been incompatible with its popular meaning.
You have a strange opinion about the popular meaning of spam. Usually
when I see people talking about spam in Usenet, they talk about
excessive multi/cross-posting of essentially the same thing.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
No wonder you're tired! You understood so much today.
Boris Schaefer
| A. When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they waste
| the valuable resources of all the readers of those groups (1)
|
| B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
Uh oh, this is just plain false.
Spam implies "abuse of net resources".
"Abuse of net resources" DOES NOT imply spam.
| C. Off-topic articles to newsgroups are spam (3)
But since B is false, C doesn't hold.
<snip>
| (1) From the article Steven Davis quoted, and it's so common
| sense that I doubt even the Trolling Trio here will challenge it.
|
| (2) Steven Davis, a few posts back.
You twisted what he said. He said, that spam is an abuse of net and
user resources.
| (3) Elementary Logic 101 flowing from the first two. If you don't
| follow this, go back and read it again, slowly. Think about
| each step.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
--
Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
Men freely believe that what they wish to desire.
-- Julius Caesar
Remco Gerlich
>I've got to wind this down now, so I'm going to focus primarily on
>challenges to A-B-C. Thanks to everyone for participating though,
>and I will review this thread on the next FAQ update. (I'll also
>put at the beginning of the one posted here that it will undergo
>a redraft in a few months.)
The problem (falsehood, actually) in the A-B-C one is that B is false.
B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
Is wrong. Posting the same thing many times makes something spam.
Just that one person said B doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't agree
with you thinks that as well.
--
Remco Gerlich scarblac at dds dot nl
"I forgot my one line so i just said what i felt," Paul Westerberg
Remco Gerlich
right thread.
The following occurred to me a few hours ago:
Spam is posting the same thing many times. However, when a user sees a
spam, he has no way of checking how often this message has been posted.
This explains why people who know perfectly well what spam is, have
started to call any message with completely off-topic content like
"check out this site", "anal teens here" etc, "Spam". It's because they
assume, usually correctly, that this message was posted to many groups.
Because of this, people who don't know everything exactly have started
calling any message of this kind "Spam".
So, although I still think only excessive multiposts/crossposts should
be called spam, I'll concede that the distinction is usually impossible
to make for a user.
It would be best to make a new term for this that includes single
off-topic posts.
Unfortunately, the term "spam" is used by users, probably because of the
reason above.
But I _still_ think that Spam should be defined only as "posting the
same thing many times", because the only times that you're going to need
an actual definition, this is what counts.
But there should be some lines about how it's used in a broader sense,
and perhaps it should cite the reason - users can't normally distinguish
the two.
Remco Gerlich
>If the dog says "content is *one* part of what determines spam",
>and the tail says "but I can't filter content, that's not useful to me,
>I need numerical algorithms", it doesn't follow that the dog should
>change its definition. The tail should simply do its algorithm.
>
unmoderated group (or moderating after the moderator has already been
there). That would be completely subjective censoring of the whole of
Usenet; I call that a practical impossibility.
I'm not saying "it's not useful to me", I'm saying you cannot do it.
Steven S. Davis
:
: In article <71leou$gs7$1...@links.magenta.com>,
: s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis) writes:
:
: >*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
:
: It's your definition, not the definition.
It's the original definition, the useful definition (i.e. the
one which has an actual meaning beyond, "stuff I don't like in my
newsgroup"), the definition used by informed people, and the correct
definition.
: Kramer says spam is the
: same thing posted many times. He doesn't attempt to modify
: it with excessive. I didn't attempt a formal definition, but take
: the position that *both* numerical and topical considerations
: have to enter into it. It's a judgment call based on the facts.
: Kathy was saying the BI index determines it. Heck, later on
: you give yet another definition of spam:
:
: >Misuse of net resources makes something spam.
That is correct.
Usenet spam is a misuse of net resources. It is not the only misuse
of net resources (it requires that the misuse occur on usenet, for
one thing), but it is a misuse of net resources, and it is because
of that misuse that it is spam, not because of the content of the
article.
: And you even use that in one instance to mandate crossposting.
: A post to two groups is spam unless there's a good reason why
: it can't be crossposted.
If there weren't a good reason for the multipost, then the
multiposting would obviously be excessive.
I do see the argument that can be made that any multiposting
is spam, but that there is a very narrow range inside the
threshold of cancellable spam (at which level the waste of
net resources exceeds any justification), within which spam
may be justifiable or excusable spam. And whether or not
that spam is justifiable or excusable would depend upon
content and location.
: Presumably a newsreader that can't
: crosspost would be a good reason. So 13 million AOLers are
: off the hook, but a poster who's unaware that his software will
: crosspost is a spammer. In effect, user sophistication with
: software determines spam in this instance, unless you think
: ignorance is a good excuse.
No. The weaknesses of someone's software might make occasional
very small spams excusable, i.e multiposting to two or perhaps
three newsgroups because one's software can't multipost.
Ignorance of what one's software can do, however, is not
an exuse, nor does the excuse of bad software justify any
but the smallest and least harmful netabuse.
What would justify a deliberate multipost when crossposting
was available ? The best of the few reasons I can think of
is when there is a subject or question that is in fact on-topic
in two newsgroups, but the two newsgroups feature people with
greatly varying approaches and/or attitudes towards their subject,
and crossposting a thread between them is likely to result in a
flamewar that can be avoided by making seperate postings to the
two newsgroups. I can think of some cases like that, and some
people may be able to think of cases in which there would be
three such newsgroups. I doubt anyone can find an example of
5 or more newsgroups in which crossposts would be on-topic but
likely to cause cross newsgroup flamewars.
The BI=2 spam in the above example would use more net resources
than would a crosspost, but may be justifiable because it avoids
the flamewar. It would not, in any event, be subject to cancellation
because no one believes that the misuse of resources involved in
a BI=2 spam justifies a third-party cancel, nor is anyone likely
to consider BI=2 sufficient reason for ISP action (while some regard
BI=5 sufficient misuse and most nonkooks regard BI=20 sufficient
misuse for third-party cancels and ISP action against the poster),
so the issue of which BI=2 spams are justifiable or not is an
academic or perhaps even scholastic argument.
: And of course two posts are not many, so none of that meets
: Kramer's definition. And we continue to go round and round,
: completing the circle, because that article you posted said this:
It said the following in explaining why spam is bad, not in defining
what spam is. That OT posting can be bad is not disputed. Because
it is bad does not, however, make it spam.
: >When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they
: >waste the valuable resources of all the readers of those
: >groups
You've clipped the part which went on to explain why spam,
aka excessive multiposting, is worse than velveeta, aka excessive
crossposting: because spam not only wastes user resources, spam
also wastes network resources.
: Which means under the previous quote above that off-topic
: posting ( = waste of resources)
Oh ? The previous quote above said "misuse of net resources".
Arguably most posts are a waste of the resources of most
readers (which is *not* an argument for increasing the amount
of waste with off-topic articles). But that wastage is
1) completely subjective, 2) part of usenet's design. The
waste of system resources from a multipost is neither subjective
nor part of the design of usenet.
: makes something spam. So
: we're full circle, and you're supporting my definition now!
Been near some red kryptonite recently ?
: Clearly there are many definitions, and they conflict. They don't
: all catch the same things. We can discuss it a bit more, but
: there's no point in any of us expecting anyone else to accept
: our definition as *the* definition. I think it's clear that the
: topical content has to be *a* consideration (not *the* consideration)
: and the examples below illustrate that. More importantly, the
: *user* view of spam illustrates that.
Only the uninformed user's view.
: >Content is irrelevant... uninformed people sometimes think that
: >spam is "spam" because it's offtopic or commercial. It is not.
: >It is spam because it is posted excessively. Post the same
: >article every day in one newsgroup where it is completely on
: >topic, and that is spam...
:
: You're trying too had, and unnecessarily hard, to deny that
: content is *a* factor. No one said a commercial post is by
: definition spam,
In point of fact, many uninformed individuals say just that.
The last time I was in a debate on this subject, on
alt.sex.stories.d, the issue was people denouncing all commercial
advertising as "spam". Much of it is, of course. Much of it
is not. And people complaining about inappropriate articles,
be they off-topic articles on a strongly topical newsgroup
or commercial articles in a noncommercial newsgroup, or cases
of excessive multiposting, should properly identify the
inappropriate articles to their or the poster's ISP.
: or an off-topic post is by definition spam. And
: no one should be saying that duplicate posts are by definition
: spam, because it's too simplistic. One test is not enough.
:
: >Your FAQ for new users should not be misinforming them
: >that "spam" is defined by it being offtopic.
:
: In *part* by it being off-topic. If you want to refute it, you'll have
: to deal with the closed circle above, and the specific examples.
: Ten "ooh-spam-me-baby.com" posts versus ten on-topic
: Superman posts to ten newsgroups where that is on-topic.
Both are spam. Not, according to everyone, cancellable spam.
But both spam. Because the ten on-topic posts, assuming that
there actually are ten newsgroups where the same article is
appropriate (unlikely), use almost ten times as much of the
net's resources to post as would one crosspost.
While the misuse of users resources is less severe than that of
net resources, users resources are also being wasted (for which
those paying for download time will be especially pleased).
Proper newsreaders (if they don't have proper newsreaders, that's
their misfortune) would only show the users that article *once*,
while multiposting it cause those users to be shown the article
in each an every newsgroup, and, if the article is in fact on topic
in each of those groups, then there will be many readers who
read more than one of those newsgroups. That's why the BI=10
multipost would be much more abusive of the net, as well as of
it's users, than would a BI=3 crosspost.
The "spam-me.baby.com" would be a more egregious violation.
But not because it's spam and the other wasn't; both were spam
and both were misuse of net resources. On that score they
are equal. But the "spam-me.baby.com" article is, in addition
to being spam, an off-topic article. And if a commerical
article posted to a noncommercial newsgroup, it would be three
violation all in one. But it's not a more severe violation because
it is spam and the other isn't. It's a more severe violation because
the other was only one violation while "spam-me" was at least two and
possibly three.
: Kramer wanted more than 10, which I guess means he accepts
: the Superman 10-post example. Anyway, he wanted 20. I'll give
: him and you 100 or more. Consider a proposal to rename every
: group in the rec.arts.* hierarchy either arts.* or rec.* A generalized
: RFD is posted or crossposted to all affected groups.
:
: Now, you can run through hoops here to try to protect your
: numerical-only definition if you must, but the fact is that content
: does matter. Even Kramer's definition -- the *same* thing posted
: multiple times -- explicitly recognizes content as a factor.
The only appropriate response to that is: Duh.
Yes, posting ten completely different articles would not be
spamming. Posting the same article - no matter what the content -
ten times is spamming.
: It's
: spam only if the content is the same, under his definition. If
: I wanted to get around it, I could alter content ever so slightly
: and do 1,000 posts. So he'd have to move to a "substantially
: similar" test which again gets to content.
It does have to meet that test. But this does not "get to content".
It does not matter what the content is, if the content is essentially
the same in multiple articles, then those article are spam.
: Your "excessive" test can also be looked at in the content sense,
: and maybe you'd use it for that purpose I don't know. If you said
: "what is excessive may depend on a variety of factors, including
: content, minimizing misuse of net resources, etc." then we aren't
: that far off.
Content is never an issue in spam. Only repetition. The meaning
of what is repeated does not matter, if it's repeated it is spam,
and as the number of repetitions rises it wastes more net resources
and becomes more likely to be cancelled..
***************************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * s...@magenta.com * sdup...@delphi.com * ssd...@ot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A news.groups survival guide" is to be found at the URL:
http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html
Documents on the newsgroup creation process can be found at:
http://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/
SForsell
>
><snip>
>
>| The way I would explain this, if I chose to, is in terms of the spam
>| filters and algorithms. What you suggest above is actually a very
>| bad thing in my view. Telling a user that spam has a Breidbart
>| Index of 10 might only encourage them to make posts just under
>| the Index
Is telling proponents how much campanigning they can get away a
bad thing in your view? It might encourage then to threaten to
campaign for their proposal on a popular Web site like Ain't It Cool
News.
---------------
Scott Forsell
sfor...@aol.comNIXIT or sfor...@mailexcite.comNIXIT - Drop the CAPS
Caedmontwo
>>Gary, and Jay.
>
>are calling you on it.
Considering that he can't understand the term "spam" when a dozen people try to
explain it to him, do you really expect him to properly understand the term
"troll".
Try this one KalElFan: The U.S. government says that a certain piece of paper,
of certain dimensions, of certain color, of certain origin, etc. is a "1 dollar
bill." You are free to try to claim that, no, any piece of green paper is a "1
dollar bill." You will however be wrong, and the US government will be right
because the US government has the authority, and you do not.
In the same way, Tale, system administrators and techies say that spam means
"posting substantially the same thing multiple times". You can disagree all you
want but it simply doesn't matter. You and 1000 of your closest friends and
enemies can disagree and it still won't matter. Tale and system administrators
are the ones who run usenet, the ones who respond to complaints about "spam",
etc. Therefore, their definition of "spam" is the correct one--and always will
be.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>In article <19981103095644...@ng87.aol.com>,
>kryp...@aol.com (KryptonCN) writes:
>
>>Faulty logic. You're missing a step in the argument. You
>>still need to show how wasting the "valuable resources of
>>all the READERS" is a "misuse of NET resouces".
>
>Here was the longer context from the article, illustrating
>that these two concepts are not just firmly linked, but
>the whole basis for the "spam is bad" consensus that
>justifies spam filters:
>
>"...the idea is that people can use their valuable time, energy,
>and net access reading material that is of interest to them in
>groups designated for those topics. When people post off-topic
>articles to newsgroups, they waste the valuable resources of all
>the readers of those groups, and make it harder to find those
>articles that would be of interest. Anyone who excessively
>multi/cross posts is invariably posting where the message is
>off-topic (if there is something that everyone should see, there
>is a newgroup for that, news.announce.important), and therefore
>misusing Usenet and abusing the readers of those newgroups
>where the article was off-topic."
>
>So not only does this article recognize the link, but it *relies*
>on the abuse of readers' resources to make its whole case.
>Multi-posting (spam in their definition) is bad *because* it's
>invariably off-topic and wastes users' resources.
I think you missed my point. Every one of these arguments deals
with the waste of readers' resources. The second phrase, however,
deals with net resources. These are different quantities, and I have
yet to see anyone show a connection between them.
Jeff
--
Jeffery D. Sykes | Kryptonian Cybernet: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~sykes/kc
sy...@ms.uky.edu | L&C Episode Guide: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~sykes/lc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming soon: rec.arts.sf.superman -- Watch for it!
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Anyway, Shane, I do not wish to engage you in discussion.
Of course you don't. Shane tends to expose your foolishness
when you engage in discussion with him (as do quite a few others
in here, might I add).
Jeffery D. Sykes
>
>: [T]he main reason I do this is because I don't
>: *want* people out there to challenge or dismiss what I write
>: lightly.
[snip]
>: I *want*, very much, to discourage people from challenging me
>: lightly.
Take out the word "lightly" in these sentences, and I think we've
rooted out the key problem.
>: I want to have a reputation that if you get into a logical
>: debate with KalElFan, you risk ending up with your cyberspace
>: ego in tatters.
And since you can't win a logical debate, you accomplish this by
redefining reality.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>definition. They just haven't recognized it, because the algorithm
>itself is what's driving their desire to think of spam as just numerical.
>They don't need to do that. Let the algorithm do its thing, and let
>the definition be what even they recognize it is.
You seem to be under the impression that spam was defined for the
purpose of defining what can be cancelled. From what everyone has
been telling you (and you've been ignoring), that's not the case.
Spam was simply defined as excessive multi-posting. The numerical
algorithm came along later as a way to determine *which* spam could
be cancelled. (At least that's what I've understood of the arguments)
This is simple, and can remain terribly simple in a FAQ, while at the
same time educating people about the proper definitions.
Here's a clue. One of the following is spam, but not off-topic. The
other is off-topic, but not spam. When you can figure out which is which,
you've finally learned the definition.
1. Posting a Batman FAQ one time to a Superman group in a month.
2. Posting a Superman FAQ thirty times to a Superman group in a month.
Jay Denebeim
Boris Schaefer <s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>As to Jay, I believe he can defend himself,
Nah, I'm done with this particular moron for the moment. He's so dull
that even when I wind him up he's still boreing. He fails to amuse,
I'm not wasting anymore time on him.
>That's the core of Jay's "hostility". He gets hostile, when people
>are behaving clueless, while acting as if they weren't.
Oh very good, that is indeed my major 'hot' button. I hate it when
ignorant people try to infect others.
(It's too bad my generally sunny nature rarely gets to show. There's
so many ignorance carriers around one would think we were in the
middle of an epidemic)
Neil Crellin
> Okay, so I forgot to inclue the expansion of a footnote:
>
> In article <bill-03119...@192.168.1.1>, bi...@scconsult.com (Bill
> Cole) wrote:
>
> >One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to
> >provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally
> >uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of
> >the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and
> >doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every
> >proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots. News.groups is
> >Usenet's Bureau of Sabotage. [1]
>
> [1] The reference is to an entity that serves as a core plot device for
> some of Frank Herbert's best work[2]. The founding axiom of the Bureau of
> Sabotage was that the processes of an efficient government and society can
> work too swiftly and efficiently, and tend to do a lot of bad things in
> the process. A bit of well-placed sabotage to force everyone to think
> twice is a good thing.
>
> [2] Including the novel "Whipping Star" as well as at least one other
> whose name eludes me at the moment and a number of short stories. Herbert
> is better known for the Dune series.
"The Dosadi Experiment", a short story in "Eye", and a tangential
reference to the McKie and BuSab in another story in "Eye". Are there
others of which I'm not aware?
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Paul Murray
>In article <bill-03119...@192.168.1.1>, bi...@scconsult.com
>I'm going to focus. But it has to be either (1) a logic challenge
>and I don't think there are any, or (2) a retreat on A and/or B in
>some way which takes us down other paths I don't think the
>other side wants to go. Unless I'm missing something, those
>would be the only approaches you could take to crack it.
Try this:
Posting off-topic material is annoying because it wastes the
time of all the people reading the group. As far the the news software
goes though, an off-topic article is exactly the same as an on-topic
one, it uses exactly the same resources. It is therefore not an abuse
of the news servers.
Posting spam (defined as the same thing lots of times) is also
annoying to readers of a group. It also consumes more resources on the
news server, as it has to store multiple copies of the article. Multiple
copies of anything (on- or off- topic) use more resources than a single
copy of anything (on- or off- topic). Therefore posting spam (defined as
the same thing lots of times) is an abuse of the news servers, therefore
the people administering the news servers cancel it.
The difference between the two (what makes something *wrong*
in this sense) rather than just annoying, is whether it consumes an
unfair amount of news server resources. To use the lingo, spam is abuse
*of* the net, not abuse *on* the net. The process is not driven by
making users happier, but by making news servers work better.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>In article <slrn73u7k...@manifold.algebra.com>,
>(In fact, as I point out, "wasting reader resources" is at the core
>of all of this. That's the *reason* spam is bad.)
No.
This is the fundamental point you are not getting.
"wasting reader resources" is not the reason spam is bad,
"wasting *server* resource" is the reason spam is bad.
-Paul Murray
Bill Cole
In article <19981103120735...@ngol04.aol.com>,
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>But it's a stipulated-to opinion in this discussion that spam
>is bad, what-ever it is. It isn't bad because it has a Breidbart
>Index of 10, or because it uses net resources because lots
>of things do. It's bad because the consensus is it abuses
>*readers*. If any of the numerical-only people want to come
>in here and disavow that, then everything crumbles. Spam
>is okay.
You desperately need to read more carefully.
The problem with spam is not USE of network resources, but MISuse of
network resources. Mire simply, unnecesary OVERuse of network resources.
>
>So the waste of reader resources is, dare I say, the "moral
>compass" here.
Nope, sorry. Welcome to Usenet.
Speaking from the perspective of an occasional itinerant news admin:
Waste my users' time all you want with news they might think is off-topic.
Use more of my disk space and bandwidth than you must to do so, and you
will piss me off and cost me time and possibly money.
Sturgeon's Law and the Spafford corollaries have only been made more true
of Usenet by its invasion by huge numbers of users who do not understand
news and do not want to. Usenet is overwhelmingly a waste of resources,
but since no one can agree on which parts are the worst waste, and the
slivers of subjective non-waste that various people judge valid are
loved passionately, we keep it alive. If Spaf was here today, I'm sure
he'd revise the fraction to at least 99%, and that would be charitable.
One of the very few things that is inherently obvious about news to anyone
with the slightest understanding of its operation is that multiposting
ANYTHING is an inefficient and intrinsically wasteful means of posting,
and it uses more network resources (i.e. what us admins really care about)
to achieve inevitably more wste of users' resources (which are less
important, but what the hell...) . Because of the "Spam Effect" (the
source of the name 'spam' for multiposting) multiposting makes even the
interested users read the same thing over and over again, and
extrapolating Sturgeon's Law means that most users never gave a damn in
the first place. All at a price of more bandwidth and spool space and
history file space and expire time, the network resources that are of much
greater concern to news admins than the apparently endless free time of
users.
> When you waste readers' resources with off-
>topic posting, that's bad and you are misusing net resources
>when you do it. The "proof" is stipulated to based on consensus,
>unless any of us wants to start advocating spam.
Off-topic posting certainly is bad, but the odds are pretty good that any
post will be considered at least crap, if not off-topic, by most readers.
That judgement is very subjective. Post off-topic and you waste only the
resources of most users of one group. Post spam (even on-topic spam) and
you waste only immeasurably less user resources in multiple groups at a
far greater cost of network and provider resources.
--
Bill Cole
KalElFan
In article <71ogcq$9tf$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>Nope. People will killfile kalelcan for the cardinal sin of being a
>flaming idiot that's BOREING. The man's posts are as dull as his
>intellect.
Who says reading spell flames from this guy can ever get old?
Here he is announcing his virtual killfile of me, trying to level
what he thinks is his big coup de grace, and here it comes in
great big caps for maximum effect, and it's... wait for it...
BOREING!
ROTFLMAO.
Try again sometime, Jay. Maybe you'll be able to get it up right
next time. If they ever develop cyber-Viagra, I nominate you for
the test group based on this.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <sykes-ya02408000...@news.campus.mci.net>,
sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
The top man in the Holy Triumvirate wrote:
>I think you missed my point. Every one of these arguments deals
>with the waste of readers' resources. The second phrase, however,
>deals with net resources. These are different quantities, and I have
>yet to see anyone show a connection between them.
It's okay, at least you made the only decent logic point in the earlier
post. Getting this one would have required logic skills *and* very
good reading comprehension of non-logic issues. Kind of like high
verbal/written and math. Few people have it. Heck, Jay can't even
insult me without spelling "boring" correctly.
I conceded that I can't *prove* a link, because some people may say
that "spam" (definition aside for the moment) wastes or does not
waste reader resources, and have a different "opinion" on whether
the same spam wastes or does not waste net resources. So kudos
to you for pointing out that *potential* logic obstacle.
But you fail the reading comprehension test. If you want to try again,
your remedial is to re-read the quoted material in the post you were
responsing to above, plus this post, plus the "USENET: Way, Way
Too Far Gone (was FAQS...)" post. Hopefully, you'll grasp the *non-
logical* no-brainer that *users* are the whole raison d'etre for not just
the spam filters but net resources as a whole. Net resources exist
*solely* to serve users. If "spam", definition aside, or *anything*
else abuses net resources such that user resources are wasted or
users themselves are abused, then the link goes straight through
and the net resources part is stipulated to as just part of the road.
So not only has the connection been made, but it's prerequisite for
you and all the remedials out there to understand how *central*
this is. You do want to understand why you've got the wrong answer,
right? So repeat after me:
1. Net resources serve users.
2. Net resources exist for no other reason than to serve users.
3. Net resources cannot be abused, except with reference to the
effect such abuse has on users.
You may be ready to advance to the next level now. It's up to you,
but your connection request (cited earlier) has now been made.
Spam *cannot* abuse net resources except with reference to
users. Yes, users can be affected by other things too, like what
they ate for breakfast, but we're talking about net abuse here.
*Users* are where it all comes from.
Now, others are running like mad away from (B), so it's becoming
moot anyway. But I've shown they have to run from their own
rational and even raison d'etre to protect this silly defintion of
theirs.
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
>Of course you don't. Shane tends to expose your foolishness...
You aren't doing the holy ghost any favors, but rant on.
KalElFan
>And since you can't win a logical debate, you accomplish this by
>redefining reality.
Take your remedial now father. (Homework's in that other post plus
two others referenced there. No connection indeed. It's been staring
you in the face. Hope that's not a Ph.D they're giving you...)
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
>Spam was simply defined as excessive multi-posting
Spam is defined by users, not by a delusional dog's tail. Get over
it, and go do your remedial. Others are watching, because as
inadequate as your performance has been so far, you've shown the
most promise on the logic side. Progress on reading comprehension
and understanding of non-logical (or at least unconventionally logical)
concepts, and you may merit that Ph.D yet. Remember, math does
not make the world go round. Ultimately, warped space does... no,
I don't mean Usenet. Athough come to think of it, maybe I should
use that Usenet definition for the FAQ.
What Is Usenet:
Usenet is warped space.
Any objections to that?
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
KalElFan
In article <36539bc5...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
gbur...@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
>Are you on drugs?
No, but I hope you are.
>His post and your follow show no crossposting. Are you an idiot
>or are you lying?
It was another post that he carried over there. I was just letting him
know that I won't go over there and re-make these arguments. I
could not respond to the actual post, because he'd set folowups
in it and AOL doesn't allow you to change that.
Here's where you tell me and 13 million AOLers to leave AOL and
sign up with a real ISP. On behalf of the 13 million, fuck you, you
arrogant, presumptious, delusional moron. :-)
Besides, I've come to like AOL. Some days I think the only sane
people in cyberspace are AOLers.
Most of you hypocrites all have AOL accounts anyway. LOL...
KalE...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kalelfan
Ed Valle
<71p1nj$iau$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>...
>
...
>
> Oh very good, that is indeed my major 'hot' button. I hate it when
> ignorant people try to infect others.
>
> (It's too bad my generally sunny nature rarely gets to show. There's
> so many ignorance carriers around one would think we were in the
> middle of an epidemic)
>
> Jay
>
Is it stress I sense in your voice Jay?
When it comes to the "ignorance carriers", you lead the pack.
Ed.
Jeffery D. Sykes
actually <gasp> wrong about something. Would you bother conceding
that, or would you simply continue to argue anyway? If the latter,
there's no point in continuing to show you why you are dead wrong
about spam.
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
>
>I conceded that I can't *prove* a link, because some people may say
>that "spam" (definition aside for the moment) wastes or does not
>waste reader resources, and have a different "opinion" on whether
>the same spam wastes or does not waste net resources. So kudos
>to you for pointing out that *potential* logic obstacle.
Then perhaps what we need to know is your definition of net resources.
Example:
Joe Spammer is a *very* well-known Usenet spammer, but he's not too
competent at hiding his identity. As a result, everyone on Usenet
with the ability to do so has already killfiled him. Furthermore,
everyone else knows not to read his posts. At this point, Joe posts
1000 copies of his spamming manifesto to 1000 groups. *Nobody* reads
it, because everyone knows better. No *reader* resources have been
wasted here. However, the 1000 posts are a waste of *net* resources,
because they are taking up valuable space on servers, regardless of
whether or not they are being read.
There's a difference between a net resource and a reader resource,
and I don't see that one necessarily implies the other.
>*solely* to serve users. If "spam", definition aside, or *anything*
>else abuses net resources such that user resources are wasted or
>users themselves are abused, then the link goes straight through
>and the net resources part is stipulated to as just part of the road.
But your A-B-C reasoning argued that a waste of reader resources
implied a waste of net resources. Now you're talking about the
opposite argument.
>1. Net resources serve users.
Granted.
>2. Net resources exist for no other reason than to serve users.
Granted.
>3. Net resources cannot be abused, except with reference to the
> effect such abuse has on users.
This you have yet to exhibit. Or at the very least, you have yet to
explain how you are defining the terms -- at least *that* might help
us "lowlies" to understand your high-fallutin' "logic".
Remco Gerlich
>
>In article <sykes-ya02408000...@news.campus.mci.net>,
>sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>
>>Spam was simply defined as excessive multi-posting
>
>Spam is defined by users, not by a delusional dog's tail.
Here is your essential mistake. Spam is defined by news admins, for who
it is a big problem. News servers are getting bogged down because of
many copies of the same thing. They called that spam, and started
cancelling it. Note that users do not come in.
It may be a problem for users too, but they seem to have a great deal of
free time anyway, they read news voluntarily, and from the pov of a news
admin, 90% of what they post is just as useless as white noise anyway.
They don't matter here.
>What Is Usenet:
>
>Usenet is warped space.
>
>Any objections to that?
>
Nah, it's just about as much to the point as the rest of the FAQ.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Spam is defined by users, not by a delusional dog's tail. Get over
>it, and go do your remedial.
Sure, spam *could* be defined by users. But only in the following sense.
Some users use "spam" to include both excessive multiposts and off-topic
postings. Fine. If the vast majority of users continue to do so, then
the word becomes to mean what it is used to mean.
That still does not change the fact that spam was *originally* defined
*only* to be excessive multiposting. So if "spam" is to come to mean
what you contend that it means, then that use is *changing* the existing
definition of the word.
My point of contention here is that one person, you in this case,
does not decide when that definition has changed. The definition
remains excessive multiposting until someone can exhibit that a
consensus of Usenetters has redefined the word. Perhaps this can
be your legacy to Usenet, but so far you have only exhibited this
by assertion, and not by any sort of data. I'll be happy to side
with you on this, once you have produced some evidence that the
word has been redefined by the masses.
>Others are watching, because as
>inadequate as your performance has been so far
Pot, kettle.
>Remember, math does not make the world go round.
Actually, it does. Go take some math courses and get back to me
when you actually have some working knowledge of mathematics.
(Arithmetic does not count)
>Usenet is warped space.
>
>Any objections to that?
Of course not. One only needs to hang out in racdu for a couple of
*minutes* to see that :)
Peppe
> In article <sykes-ya02408000...@news.campus.mci.net>,
> sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
> >Spam was simply defined as excessive multi-posting
> Spam is defined by users, not by a delusional dog's tail.
Seems to me like you are arguing with a lot of users that agree on a
different definition. Some of these users happen to be news admins and
might even know more about usenet than the average user.
Peppe
--
Preben Guldberg c92...@student.dtu.dk http://www.student.dtu.dk/~c928400/
I am never forget the day I am given first original paper to write. It was on
analytic and algebraic topology of locally Euclidean metrization of infinitely
differentiable Riemannian manifold. Bozhe moi! --Tom Lehrer: Lobachevsky
Jeff J. Wilson
>
> A hypothetical question, Kal. Suppose, for a moment, that you were
> actually <gasp> wrong about something. Would you bother conceding
> that, or would you simply continue to argue anyway? If the latter,
> there's no point in continuing to show you why you are dead wrong
> about spam.
>
You've hit the nail on the head here Jeff. KalEl will never concede that he
is wrong, to him the debate is everything. What is funny is that he has
ruined any chance that his FAQ will be taken seriously, and it did get serious
comments, by incessent pig-headedness on this minor point. It's the same
thing he acted in the superman proposal.
[snip KalEl's tripe]
--
Jeff J. Wilson [ jeff....@unisys.com ]
...speaking only for myself
Vanguard of the 13er generation.
Fiona Webster
> One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to
> provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally
> uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of
> the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and
> doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every
> proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots.
And this is a problem because...?
Seriously--I never paid any attention to the news.groups process until
this past summer, when Dan Clore and I initiated a proposal for creating
a rec.arts.horror hierarchy. After 3 RFDs, that proposal is now in its
voting stage. I found the process a bit tedious at times, but never
arbitrarily oppositional. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that
every proposal should be resisted at first, and probed for its weak
spots. Whether our newsgroups get created, or not, I feel that we
have been given a fair hearing by this process.
--Fiona
mul...@selway.umt.edu
scar...@dds.nl (Remco Gerlich) wrote:
> kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> >I've got to wind this down now, so I'm going to focus primarily on
> >challenges to A-B-C. Thanks to everyone for participating though,
> >and I will review this thread on the next FAQ update. (I'll also
> >put at the beginning of the one posted here that it will undergo
> >a redraft in a few months.)
>
As Remco says below, there's a flaw in your syllogism.
> The problem (falsehood, actually) in the A-B-C one is that B is false.
>
> B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
>
> Is wrong. Posting the same thing many times makes something spam.
Remco is correct-- see any of the various glossaries of Net slang. If you
think of the origin of the term "Spam" this should be obvious. It comes
from an old Monty Python sketch in which the menu includes spam.--over and
over and over again. It's that repetition which makes this particular form
of net abuse into spam. As Remco says in another post, someone looking at a
particular off-topic post may think "This is spam" and yet be wrong. People
who don't read dictionaries are frequently wrong about the definitions of
particular words they have seen and heard used. But that does not make their
opinions correct. I grant you that an improperly used word can eventually
gain currency with a different meaning. But that simply has not happened
here. If it had happened, lots of people would be agreeing with you-- and
we're not.
> Just that one person said B doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't agree
> with you thinks that as well.
Precisely.
There are *lots* of other kinds of net-abuse which are not spam, and you know
it perfectly well. Forged cancel messages are not spam. Perhaps not all
trolls are net-abuse, but I'd say that some certainly are- and *they're* not
spam. People trying to buy votes for or against newsgroup proposals is
net-abuse but not spam. And we could go on a lot longer.
If B fails, your syllogism fails. Check some glossaries and give up on this
point-- please?
BTW, In general, except for this and a few other minor problems, I liked your
FAQs. I'm sure you agree that you need to fix the business about "10,000
newsgroups." I'd suggest the language "tens of thousands of newsgroups" to
allow for plenty of growth. I agree that they're long-- but IMHO that could be
dealt with by splitting them up. If you'd post 4 or six FAQs with similar
content, objections to the length should vanish.
>
> --
> Remco Gerlich scarblac at dds dot nl
> "I forgot my one line so i just said what i felt," Paul Westerberg
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Nicholas Carey
> Bill, thanks for the comments. Generally, I don't think there's
> much I can do because the balance issue is important. You
> may think this a FAQ designed simply to tell readers about
> the process, which is why you agree with retitling it. But
> it's really about making this place work better by having better
> informed new people. IMO, you can't do that without directly
> addressing the things that lead to the problems.
FAQS are, you might say, both Frequently Asked Questions and
Frequently Posted Answers to the same. If you've strayed (as you
appear to have) from simply answering the questions and are
pontificating about the way Things Ought To Be, then it's no longer a
FAQ, but an editorial, n'est-ce-pas?
Nicholas
--
Just the facts, ma'am -- LAPD Sgt. Joe Friday, _Dragnet_
k95...@cc.kzoo.edu
f...@oceanstar.com (Fiona Webster) wrote:
> Bill Cole writes:
> > One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to
> > provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally
> > uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of
> > the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and
> > doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every
> > proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots.
[snip]
> Seriously--I never paid any attention to the news.groups process until
> this past summer, when Dan Clore and I initiated a proposal for creating
> a rec.arts.horror hierarchy. After 3 RFDs, that proposal is now in its
> voting stage. I found the process a bit tedious at times, but never
> arbitrarily oppositional. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that
> every proposal should be resisted at first, and probed for its weak
> spots. Whether our newsgroups get created, or not, I feel that we
> have been given a fair hearing by this process.
I agree with the previous two posters -- probing proposals for weak spots is
a feature, not a bug, of news.groups. My experience in reading this group
(I've only read it for just over three years now, but I think I've gathered
*some* non-zero amount of experience over that period of time; I know some
people, including some of the ones I am most critical of, have been around
much, much longer) tells me that when the important function of probing
proposals for weak points turns into a flame war, personalities, and not the
merits of the proposals, end up being the subject of probing.
Especially in the case of unmoderated newsgroups, I think that this is not
only non-productive, but counterproductive in that the actual weak points of
the proposal are less likely to be strengthened.
I agree that news.groups performs a valuable role in posing critical,
difficult questions about the newsgroup proposals that go through it. But I
think that when the subject of debate becomes personalities and not
proposals, we defeat our purpose.
Peace,
Dan Lawson