On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:01:41 PM UTC-5, Tim Skirvin wrote:
> Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
> Posting-Frequency: weekly
> Last-modified: 1998/11/10
> URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
> Maintainer: tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
> Original-Author: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
>
> Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
>
> This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds
> and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent.
> It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and
> definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms
> inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
> informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive
> correctness.
>
> Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
> usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means,
> essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
> article."
>
> "Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
> sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
> included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
> identical articles:
>
> - byte-for-byte identical messages
> - otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
> each group it appears in.
> - advertising the same service.
> - articles that consist solely of the same signature
> - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
> postings, but are otherwise identical.
>
> Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group.
> Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
>
> Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
> than one group each have been made.
>
> Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good
> behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net.
> Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
> when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting
> how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond
> the scope of this FAQ.
>
> This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
> EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several
> different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but
> most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
>
> A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to
> many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is
> abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
>
> A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
> quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
> single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
> square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
> to).
>
> Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
> to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
>
> The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
> may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
> of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
> one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
>
> (sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
> ( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
>
> The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher
> end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
>
> A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
> is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
> the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
> one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
>
> (sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
> ( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
>
> Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to
> determine whether a spam is cancellable.
>
> The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the
> following measures:
>
> 1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
> 2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
> sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
> past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
> unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
> cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
> posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
> money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
> several years ago. This author recommends one posting
> cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
> once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
>
> A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
> have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to
> limitations in Usenet software.
>
> These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
> and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided
> upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
> of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
>
> These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
> message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if
> it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was
> posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
> not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
> and not _what_ was said.
>
> Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site
> "cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally
> done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to
> reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
> if you need this patch.
>
> Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
>
> The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
> <URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
>
> "What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
>
> "What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
>
> "FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
>
> "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
>
> "Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
>
> "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
>
> Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
> Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog"
> (Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
>
> "Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin
> <URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
>
> RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
> <URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
>
> The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se,
> mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw,
> hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
>
> A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial
> advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to
> comm...@acpub.duke.edu.

I thank you...