Re: Statistics for comp.cad.solidworks, 03 Nov 2008

Notes

> ~~~~~ > > o =A0This automated posting occurs weekly on Monday.

I'm a bit curious here, once You said that if anybody was interested You would post this stats here weekly. Now... I wonder if we could see any statistics from that ....how many answered ? how may was interested? how many was not interested?

I'm not even the slightest interested in ccsstats, but that might be another question......and YES....I know about kill files and all that.

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L
Loading thread data ...

Sorry about the misspelling in last post...I know som people can be picky about these things around here. Should have been:

how many answered ? how many were interested? how many were not interested?

sorry once again....

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L

Then why do you keep posting a bout it?

Reply to
brewertr

"o The subject line will be formatted consistently, as follows: "Statistics for comp.cad.solidworks, 01 Jan 1970" Substituting the date the statistics were generated. Add it to your kill file if you are not interested."

Reply to
Black Dragon

Two different things....Tom

I'm not interested in how many posts anyone did last week...but what bothers me is that Mr Dragon keep on spamming. He was polite enough to ask if anyone was interested, but then he posted anyhow with that little "addendum"......add it to your killfile if You don't like it.

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L

Dear Mr Dragon..

I'm not at all interested in how many posts anyone did here last week...but it bothers me to see this "spam" here in the ng. You were polite enough to say that if anyone was interested, You should post this weekly. And what happened.....it's here anyhow.

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L

It's one post per week, not interested ignore it or filter it if it bothers you that much.

Spaming?

It's one ON Topic post per week, statistics for this group.

You are assuming no one said they were interested?

I find it informative and interesting.

As you should with any poster, subject or thread you don't wish to be bothered with.

Tom

Reply to
brewertr

You don't get to call things _you don't want to see_ "spam". There is already a consensus as to what and what not spam on Usenet is (Usenet spam is not the same as email spam) and it's defined in the following FAQ which gets posted weekly to several newsgroups.

Feel free to educate yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------- From: snipped-for-privacy@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.sightings,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.answers Subject: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:45:01 -0700 Message-ID:

Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq Posting-Frequency: weekly Last-modified: 1998/11/10 URL:

formatting link
snipped-for-privacy@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) Original-Author: snipped-for-privacy@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

"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes

"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti

"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr

"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al

"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.

"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al

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

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines

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 snipped-for-privacy@acpub.duke.edu.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Or feel free to whine some more about a weekly posting which is easily ignored.

The choice is yours.

Reply to
Black Dragon

Me too. Is why I post them.

Reply to
Black Dragon

ws.admin.net-a=ADbuse.sightings,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.answers

Dear Mr Dragon

Wasn't really whining from start...just wondering if there were any stat's on how many was interested in this.

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L

Just as I thought then.....

// Krister

Reply to
Krister_L

Yep. Current statistics show you are out numbered by a margin of at least 2 to 1.

And yes, I did mention if anyone was interested I'd post the the stats weekly. Nobody responded, but at least one person was indeed interested. That person was *me*. Is one of the nice things about being a human being and having free will, I get to change my mind whenever I want. :)

Reply to
Black Dragon

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.