🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:00:16 -0000 "Dave Korn" 
>"Kate" <anonyme@meow.org> wrote in message

>> Actually, Jet wrote a very nice and complete explanation of how this
>> is done by 'official' cancellers such as Andrew Gierth. I archived it,
>> if you'd like I can repost it into nanau, if it's ok with her.
>
>  Ooh yes pleace.  That would be interesting, I've got no idea myself what
>sort of things the spambots search for, though I could make a few guesses.

Here ya go:

Jet wrote:

Okay, let me see if I can explain this without getting myself
confused. :) When the 'official' cancellers (like Andrew Gierth) run
their bots, the bots use a code to determine how much of a group of
posts is identical and how much might be hashbuster (a small amount of
extra text or code, added to try and make the posts not -exactly-
identical). I'm not sure how cascades avoid tripping the bot but, I'm
pretty sure they aren't identical enough x posted enough times, to be
considered spam. 

None of the posts are actually read by a human being, so the content,
other than just the characters in it, isn't considered. Spam is
determined by volume and the measurement is -deliberately- not content
related, as that would be censorship. Repeating "altopia sux" 20 times
in one group, is just as much spam as posting 20 ads for pheromones in
one group. There are exceptions, such as cancelling misplaced binaries
and Make Money Fast schemes. MMF schemes, for the purposes of
cancelling, are all considered to be identical, so any one of them
exceeds BI>20.

Cancelling is dependent on the number of times a substantively
identical post is posted. The content is only seen as a bunch of
characters. Bots can't tell what things mean.

</Jet>

>> As far as rogue cancellers go, who knows what their motivations are?

>  Mostly it seems to be the childish inability to accept not having
>everything their own way.  Really, I'm not just being sarky there, pretty
>much every one that I've been aware of has really been immature to the point
>of serious impairment.

It seems to be fairly indiscriminate to me. Not group or poster
specific. It's just a bit irritating when the reposts flood in.

>> Hmm. I wonder how much flack spam cancellers get over censorship
>> issues -- other than from the obvious source.

>  Well, it's pretty much the standard accusation that's trotted out by
>pretty much every spammer who wants to paint themselves as the injured
>party, but AFAIK it's only the hipslime / kook cabal guys that have been
>trying to make a 'big-lie' style propaganda campaign out of it.

It's a fine line I 'spose and one I'm glad I don't need to concern
myself with -- other than to satisfy my own curiosity.