Re: permitted cross-posting for genuine FAQs
Kent Landfield (kent@landfield.com)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:13:46 -0600 (CST)
# I realize that this would require a significant software investment
# and so at best is a long term solution, but in light of "son of RFC
# 1036" now would probably be the best time to suggest it.
#
# I also realize that it has probably already been discussed in the
# appropriate places, but since I'm not following those discussions I
# offer it here for consideration.
#
# It seems to me that to answer Chris' legitimate concern about content,
# a different approach, not limited to FAQs, might be incorporated,
# consisting of two parts:
#
# 1) tighten up the meaning of "approved" so that the approval header
# amounts to a crypto signature of the article by the
# moderator. This would dramatically reduce the likelyhood of
# forged approvals.
#
# 2) exempt moderated groups from spam BI calculation, other than
# checking the signature.
#
# I realize that I'm suggesting a significant change in the software, as
# well as a process that might be CPU intensive. However, it might not
# be necessary for the signature to be checked by most sites, only by
# spam-cancellers.
Might want to check out/participate in the USEFOR IETF Working Group
efforts in this area. Check out http://www.landfield.com/usefor/ for
more information on USEFOR.
--
Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502
Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/
Email: kent@nfr.net http://www.nfr.net/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to kent@landfield.com
Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/