>>>>>> "Marty" == Marty Fouts <fouts@null.net> writes:
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.
You are right. I forgot that.
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*.
Once was more than enough. I thought we had moved on to Chris' point
that cancelling, in general, should not rely on content or intent of
posting, but rather BI. My suggestion was pointed at that, with an
intent that FAQs that might someday break the current BI would be
covered as a result.
> *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.
Nor did I anywhere say you could. I think I've wandered into
someone's hot topic. My apologies.
marty
-- marty fouts mailto:fouts@null.net http://www.best.com/~mjfSafe upon the solid rock the ugly houses stand: Come and see my shining palace built upon the sand! -- Edna Saint Vincent Millay (Second Fig)