From: G. James Berigan (usefor@war-of-the-worlds.org)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 09:50:58 CST
"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> wrote:
>Charles Lindsey said:
>> 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.
> NO !
>
> What if there are 21 articles meeting the criteria for cancelling, but each
> canceller only saw 20. They are likely to each end up with the same ID even
> though the cancels differ.
>
> I wouldn't have thought the $alz convention would be necessary for cancels
> of more than 10 or so articles at once.
So, we either need to invent a new propagation method and/or analysis for
bulk cancels, or the bulk cancellers will have to develop a policy of a
threshold at which they decide a bulk cancellation is preferable to
individual cancel messages such that the multiple receipt of these cancels
does not become an issue, or assign a single bulk canceller, possibly one
person who would act as a kind of moderator for other spam cancellers and
collect the IDs for bulk cancels, whose job is to cancel the really big
spams.
So, do we want to attempt the first (if we are even in a position to
attempt it) or take the easy way out and leave it up to those who would use
the bulk cancel to develop their own policy?