From: Charles Calvert <cbciv@...>
Date: 2009-06-07T10:50:05+09:00
Subject: Re: SPAM from Usenet

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:10:21 +0200, "Michael Bruschkewitz"
<brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@gmx.net> wrote in
<680c0$4a2b056d$5b0ec640$29901@news1.surfino.com>:

[snip]

>I thought about a solution which could be handled by readers on NNTP and on 
>the mailing list too.
>I don't think it is possible to implement a solution without human 
>assistance. I also think it is not practicable to convert the NG to a 
>moderated one, because this would need positive acknowledgement of every 
>single message. Not only the amount of work would be huge, it would bring 
>unnecessary delays.

Not necessarily.  As a Usenet moderator, I can tell you that there are
a number of possible solutions.

1. First, one can take the whitelist approach, using a 'bot:

a. Whitelist anything coming from ruby-talk.

b. Whitelist posters with a history of posting on-topic.

Anything on the whitelist gets automatically approved by the 'bot.  If
a whitelisted poster goes rogue, you'll have to remove them from the
whitelist post facto, but that shouldn't happen often, if ever.
Whitelisting can even take paths into account, to deal with forgeries
from net.kooks.

Anything not on the whitelist gets queued for human moderation.  That
should be a fairly small percentage.

2. The moderation submission address can employ spam filters to help
deal with spam that gets sent via NNTP or directly to the address.
This will prevent most of the NNTP-originated spam from being passed
to ruby-talk.

3. PGPMoose could be used by the moderation 'bot to sign approved
messages.  Anything that isn't signed gets dropped by the gateway.

[snip rest]

This would take some work, but it is possible.
-- 
Charles Calvert             |  Web-site Design/Development
Celtic Wolf, Inc.           |  Software Design/Development
http://www.celticwolf.com/  |  Data Conversion
(703) 580-0210              |  Project Management