Expires: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:03:04 GMT Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> From: email@example.com (Tim Skirvin) Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.answers Subject: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.EDU Summary: This posting contains the current Spam definitions, thresholds, and guidelines, as used by most major spam cancellers and news administrators. Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:03:04 -0700 Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq Posting-Frequency: weekly Last-modified: 1998/11/10 URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/ Maintainer: email@example.com (Tim Skirvin) Original-Author: firstname.lastname@example.org (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 email@example.com.