 The magazine of the Melbourne PC User Group Editorial Carol Daniels cad@melbpc.org.au |
 |
Community development
I've written before about Melb PC as a community. Understanding communities - how they are formed, why some
thrive and others wither and die - is important, not only for Melb PC and user groups in general, but for the
population at large
The environments in which people meet and communicate are changing...again. Every time that happens, people
reevaluate the concept of community, what is appropriate behaviour within the community, which communities to
join, which to avoid. That element of choice is relatively new. It wasn't long ago that an individual's
community was determined at birth and there were few real opportunities to choose a new one.
When it comes to communities, the issue of choice is important. Individuals are dynamic participants in their
communities, they shape their communities, which in turn shape them.
Today the range and specificity of choice available to individuals has the potential to change the
fundamental nature of community. Researchers from many disciplines are studying community in the context of
cyberspace. We have two articles on the subject of community in cyberspace in this issue. The authors have
different perspectives, but they arrive at some common conclusions.
Both articles inspired me to think again about Melb PC as a community, how we relate to each other, how we
recognise each other, how we define our community and how we define ourselves as individuals within the
organisation.
Although some members participate in our face-to-face activities, in a relatively short period of time our
community has gone from primarily face-to-face to primarily textual communication, via PC Update, the
Internet and the BBS.
These changes provide interesting new opportunities for social interaction. If we want those interactions to
be productive and if we want our community to continue to thrive, we will need to understand the process of
community in text-based environments.
Spam
If you think, "spiced ham in a can" when you hear the word spam, skip the rest of this editorial. For many
members of the online community, spam is a perennial concern and generates strong reactions.
If you want to be technically correct, spam describes identical and irrelevant postings to many different
newsgroups or mailing lists. In general use, it is also used to described unsolicited commercial e-mail, or
UCE. To avoid confusion you should probably distinguish between the two: use the technically correct
terminology or use "e-mail spam" for UCE.
According to the Net Abuse FAQ spam is "The same article (or essentially the same article) posted an
unacceptably high number of times to one or more newsgroups. Content is irrelevant. 'Spam' doesn't mean
'ads.' It doesn't mean 'abuse.' It doesn't mean 'posts whose content I object to.' Spam is a funky name for a
phenomenon that can be measured pretty objectively: did that post appear X times?"
How many times is X?
The Net Abuse FAQ should be required reading for every netizen. It covers spam and associated issues,
including e-mail spam. It also answers the all important question, "How many times is X?" Or more
specifically, how many posts does it take to push the spam button? There is room for interpretation, but not
much, again from the Net Abuse FAQ, "Among those who agree that spam should be defined solely by quantity,
X = 20"
Other definitions include, "More than five physically distinct postings with substantially identical
content posted within a period of ten days."
Another is the Breidbart Index (BI). "The Breidbart Index (BI) is a measure of the breadth of any
multi-posting, cross-posting, or combination of the two. BI is defined as the sum of the square roots of how
many newsgroups each article was posted to. If that number approaches 20, then the posts will probably be
cancelled by somebody. For instance, four identical posts to nine newsgroups each (4 times 3) has a BI of 12.
However, nine identical posts to four newsgroups each (9 times 2) has a BI of 18."
The Net Abuse FAQ deals primarily with what's considered net abuse in the comp.*, misc.*. humanities.*,
news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.* and alt.* newsgroups. Regional and local hierarchies often have stricter
policies on net abuse.
Your ISP may be stricter still
That's an important point to understand. You need to know what spam is and understand the general principles
of netiquette. If you spam or send UCE, you will likely receive your entire lifetime allotment of flame mail
in the 24 hours immediately following the act. You'll also get copies of all the complaints (about you) that
are being sent to to abuse@your_isp.com, postmaster@your_isp.com, and the like. Expect a
"Please Explain" request from your ISP's postmaster or admin contact.
Calculations aside, spam is an abuse of netiquette. It's breach of virtually every ISP's terms of service.
Spam is almost guaranteed to have your account suspended or cancelled completely.
The other side of the inbox
You'll have to work hard at it if you want to guarantee that you never see spam in newsgroups or receive spam
in your e-mail. You will have to set tight kill file rules for newsgroups. Never use your e-mail address in
public. Never join a mailing list. Never post a newsgroup message yourself. Never participate. Lurk
forever.
That's probably not what you had in mind when you went online. There is a middle ground, and there are
resources to help you stem the tide. A few of the most useful are:
Center for Democracy and Technology (be sure to try this site's Privacy Demonstration): http://www.cdt.org
Fight Spam on the Internet (good links, background and a tutorial "How to complain about spam"):
http://www.vix.com/spam/ or its Australian mirror at http://www.suburbia.com.au/spam/
The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email CAUCE (activities primarily focus on US legislation, but
it has an excellent selection of anti-spam resources)
http://www.cauce.org
Reprinted from the June 1998 issue of PC Update, the
magazine of Melbourne PC User Group, Australia
