🚀 go-pugleaf

system@codeworks.gen.nz (Wayne W. McDougall) writes:

>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:

>> Whould it be possable for you to use NoCeMs reather then cancels.  By the

>It is my understanding (from the latest net.abuse FAQ he idly mentions
>to gain some brownie points to indicate he is at least aware of the
>issues he is dicing with), that NoCem readers are only available for
>UNIX systems.

We are working on it.  Currently there are no readers for NoCeMs for
non-Unix systems however there are meany peaple devloping such devicers.
In addtion through of NoCeM-on-the-Spool any ISP may extend the benifits
to there users.

>As with killfiles they also don't address some important issues.

Such as?

>> use of NoCeMs you create an accountable and effecent way of noterfing
>> peaple that the posts should not be read.  Content based theard party
>> cancels should never be considered justerfied.

>You might want to consider how you define "content based"

I define content as "The idears or options conained within a post."

I define content based as "Any test that makes use of the contenct or what
is beleaved to be the content of the post."

>> In addtion for you to clime that you have the support of the public, you
>> must act in public.

>Nothing I do is hidden. I don't claim the support of anyone.

If you don't have the support of the conceus of sysadmins in the area that
you effect you should not do anything.

-- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  /\ /\ /\  
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay?     (  X  X  )
I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky  \/ \/ \/