Marty> It seems to me that to answer Chris' legitimate concern about
Marty> content, a different approach, not limited to FAQs, might be
Marty> incorporated, consisting of two parts:
Marty> 1) tighten up the meaning of "approved" so that the approval
Marty> header amounts to a crypto signature of the article by the
Marty> moderator. This would dramatically reduce the likelyhood of
Marty> forged approvals.
This is already available (PGPMoose). Unfortunately, it doesn't fit
the *.answers pre-approval model; it works for conventional moderated
groups because the secret keys can be held at a central location by
the moderator, but *.answers posts are not injected by the *.answers
moderators.
Marty> 2) exempt moderated groups from spam BI calculation, other than
Marty> checking the signature.
This is a non-issue for FAQs. How often must we say this: *no
currently approved FAQ is breaking the spam thresholds*.
*No-one*, certainly not myself, Chris, or the usenet-format group, can
say to news admins "you must exempt FAQs from your server's filters".
We can work with the authors of those filters to try and ensure that
sensible defaults are used, and we can advise faq-maintainers as to
crossposting limits and maximum posting frequency.
-- Andrew.