From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 05 1999 - 05:33:34 CST
In <87k8nyvwso.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Andrew Gierth <andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The point about $alz ids is that we don't have to worry about this, we
>can all concentrate on our own method without having to worry about any
>overlaps, knowing that the duplicates will get eliminated automatically.
Indeed, but if we go for some alternative notation for including multiple
cancels in one message (such as the bodyful of cancels that Brad is
suggesting) then the $alz convention would not work there either.
There might be some benefit in a convention whereby, if a single cancel
message was directed only against the multiple instances of a single spam
(i.e. those that contributed to its BI) then you chose a single Message-ID
from them according to some agreed algorithm (the least, for example) and
use that to apply the $alz rule to.
However, the question is whether the despammers could make use of ANY
method of multiple cancels in a single message. If not, there is little
point in proceeding with Brad's proposal.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5