This is an auxiliary page to The NoCeM Registry. This page was last modified 06 juli 2008. Copyright © 1997-2008 Rosalind Hengeveld.
See the FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines for definitions of the Breidbart Index (BI) and the Skirvin-Breidbart Index (SBI). We use the abbreviation 'CI' for a spam index equal to the number of substantively identical copies, irrespective of cross-posts, as used by some issuers.
Although the accepted Usenet-wide cancellation threshold for spam is BI >= 20, we list NoCeM issuers for consensus (green) deletion criteria if their threshold is at least BI >= 10, SBI >= 10 or CI >= 10. We indicate with the Criteria entry any particular spam threshold, especially when different from the accepted cancellation threshold for issuer's scope.
The above does not imply that we should be in favor of lowering the accepted Usenet-wide spam threshold. We think a threshold of 10 is okay for a hierarchy of limited size (such as nl.*). For Usenet-wide application, however, we'd rather stick to the accepted threshold of 20 (preferably SBI >= 20).
We read Dutch, English, French and German in that order of proficiency (and we may make a little sense of a few more languages, but please don't count on it). We write in Dutch or English.
We consider the Usenet newsgroup news.admin.nocem the most appropriate place to: publish NoCeM policy statements, discuss criteria, indicate preferences, raise objections, and publish any other information relevant to The NoCeM Registry. Note the NoCeM-enforceable cross-post limitation clause in the newsgroup's charter:
While this newsgroup allows cross-posted articles, any article posted to the newsgroup must have its default follow-up set either to the newsgroup only or outside the newsgroup.
If you e-mail us information, we will give it the attention it deserves, but we reserve the right not to reply; also to publish (usually on this page) short excerpts from clarifications in e-mail by listed issuers or permissioners in reply to questions from us.
A good possible way to supply accountability information for individual articles is as remarks in the notice body, for example:
@@BEGIN NCM BODY #From: Mike Doyle <firstname.lastname@example.org> #Subject: Question #Reason for deletion: EMP spam, SBI = 1222 <email@example.com> [newsgroup(s) ...]
For higher-volume NoCeM activity, this may be compressed to a single line in order to save space. Here's an example from Andrew Gierth's NoCeM message <firstname.lastname@example.org> of 19 Dec 1998:
The additional information provided is: # ORIGIN-SITE NNTP-POSTING-HOST TRACKING-ID BI/DAYS [...] @@BEGIN NCM BODY # goodnet.com 126.96.36.199 c+Be2fBtfbV1FgWZ5P3RjA== 913.475/43 <c7Me2.5214$Jq3.email@example.com> alt.sex.www.sexzilla.com [...]
The Change Log was first published 20 Dec 1998. Some earlier dates were reconstructed and may be inaccurate.
The red, yellow and green color-coding of deletion criteria is strictly our responsibility. We will take an issuer's own preference to heart, but we do not guarantee to observe it.
Note that, while using the same 'traffic light' colors, the non-bold red, yellow and green color-coding of deletion criteria entries has a completely different meaning than the bold coding of must, should and may for levels of requirement as used in our policy..