🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5gjvgi$pgv@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Darrell A. Larose <ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>ncf.general newsgroup about 5-6 weeks ago. Not from one commercial spam,
>although technically it wasn't spam, as it was posted to each group as
>a seperate article, rather than a massive x-post.

  By the way:  SPAM is like the word 'garbage' - while many people seem 
to like to want to define it, the definition is subjective and always 
changing.  Many people try to define things, but the term has been in use 
for so long to mean so many different things, that no exacting definition 
can ever be applied to it at this point.


  The two things you just described were subsets of SPAM which have 
generally agreed-to definitions:  EMP (Excessive Multi-Posting), and ECP 
(Excessive Cross-Posting).

EMP - you take a message that is essentially the same, and post it to a 
large number of newsgroups generating a NEW message each time.   This is 
the most $costly$ and least liked type of SPAM.

ECP - You take a single message, and cross-post it to a large number of 
groups.  This is the easiest type of SPAM to detect as you don't even 
need to carry all the newsgroups listed in order to run a detector on it.


  Another commonly-agreed upon type of SPAM is MMF for Make Money Fast.  
These types of schemes seem to be very popular on the Internet, and they 
are so obvious that the subjective nature of defining them it is as hard.


  When it comes to the more social types of SPAM, personal definitions 
will vary.   Some define SPAM as being an ECP of more than 10 groups.  
Some define SPAM as a EMP/ECP of more than 1 group where the topic is not 
appropriate for any 1 of the groups listed.  When you get into this 
latter type, you cannot get into objective definitions, or 'numbers' - 
it becomes like the word 'garbage' - a very subjective word.


  The vast majority of what is called SPAM cannot be 'detected by 
software', and cannot have numbers applied to it.  It is the type of SPAM 
that is caused by people treating each other online in a way that would 
obviously be seen as antisocial if done in person.  Groups of people are 
groups of people whether they are online or not.

   Would you allow someone to play their Metallica* tape full blast 
during the sermon at your local church?  Could you write a piece of 
software to 'detect' this antisocial behavior?  Obviously not.

  The electronic equivalent of this type of antisocial behavior happens 
every day, and in all of its various forms it's called SPAM.



* I'm a Metallica fan, which is why I often mention this group.  I know 
there are many types of group situations where playing some of my 
favorite music would not at all be appreciated!  There are other times in 
other groups when it is exactly what is wanted!




  As to the NCF:

  One of the problems with 'protecting' someone from the outside world, 
whether it be a child or a sub-culture is that you risk having this 
person have a rougher time when they do need to interact with 
this outside world.  For most, the question is not 'if', but 'when' and 
'how fast'.

  I think it is generally agreed that having provider-specific newsgroups 
separate from the Regional newsgroups (ott,ont,can,...) or Usenet 
(comp,news,rec,...) is considered a good thing.  Pretty much every 
Internet Provider I know of has a <provider-name>.general newsgroups 
(ncf.general, carleton.general, achilles.general, flora.general, 
igs.general, torfree.general).

  The idea is to have a few local groups to allow people to become 
climatized to this new way of communicating:  A place for them to feel 
comfortable to 'make mistakes' without having people slam down hard on 
them for doing something rude when they have no idea what is or is not 
considered 'rude'.

  Most providers, however, then actively encourage their membership to go 
out and try the regional/Usenet newsgroups after a small period.  This is 
where some of the Freenet systems differ from an Internet provider in the 
same community.  That Internet user is quickly brought up to speed on the 
culture of the net, while the Freenet user tends to get slapped each time 
they venture beyond the Freenet.

  Which is better?  I think it has been obvious which one I think is 
better.  I'm actively trying to get flora.* groups turned into 
appropriate regional newsgroups, and only leave a bare-minimum 'Sandbox' 
for new users to play in, as well as a bare minimum of administrative groups.

  The Complaints Resolution Committee is in the works to try to help with 
some of the culture-shock that some Freenet users have experienced when 
wondering into outside newsgroups.   They are currently getting their 
heads around the whole issue of SPAM, and the definitions of EMP, ECP and 
MMF (Make Money Fast).  We'll have to wait and see how this goes.  I 
suspect this will go a lot way to cleaning up some of the animosity seen 
between NCF and non-NCF users when it comes to behavior in the various 
newsgroups!
-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Consultant: <http://www.flora.org/russell/>
 Community Volunteer: <http://www.flora.org/> <http://www.ox.org/ox/>
 If I seem distracted, please forgive me.  I'm engaged to be married!