From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Mon Nov 08 1999 - 10:38:01 CST
G. James Berigan 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 $alz rule to.
>> NO !
[reason deleted]
> So, we either need to invent a new propagation method and/or analysis for
> bulk cancels, or the bulk cancellers will have to develop a policy of a
> threshold at which they decide a bulk cancellation is preferable to
> individual cancel messages such that the multiple receipt of these cancels
> does not become an issue, or assign a single bulk canceller, possibly one
> person who would act as a kind of moderator for other spam cancellers and
> collect the IDs for bulk cancels, whose job is to cancel the really big
> spams.
This is an issue for the spam cancellers to work out for themselves. I was
just pointing out that picking a representative message would be a
mistake.
Actually, it's worse than a mistake. The spammer merely sends out a
pre-emptive pseudo-$salz-convention cancel for the first few messages,
secure in the knowledge that this will beat any bulk cancels and allow the
rest of his spam to propogate untouched.
-- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646