On 19 Nov 00 at 17:23, Paul Prior MD wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:42:20 +0100, "Willem-Jan Markerink"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I would say the blatant advertising in your sig are enough reason to
> >classify your message as spam.
>
> And you would be wrong.
Don't try to lecture me on what is spam or not.
There is a mile wide gap between promoting ones own site, or even
business, to promoting someone elses business with direct financial
gain on each click-through.
> >And before you get all upset: the above spam-notice has nothing to
> >do with this list or Majordomo-filtering, or even you being booted
> >from this list, it's just a private individual (and/or his ISP) in
> >action against spam....even if I wanted to do something against his
> >actions, I couldn't (nor do I want to)
> >If the line 'get rebates from online purchases' isn't a spam-trigger,
> >nothing is.
> >
> >Count yourself lucky that this list doesn't have such filters, yet.
> >
> >(I consider the concept of posting-only-for-members as good enough
> >against 99.99% of spam, but perhaps I should reconsider)
>
> I thank the several members who wrote me privately stating that they
> too have seen that error message recently - it obviously wasn't
> related to anything in my post specifically but rather some mailing
> list problem.
It's not obvious at all.
The only thing obvious is your sig containing at least one spam
trigger, more if this type of spam is more common (and the filter
more specific). The rest is irrelevant, especially your arrogance
about claiming that it is not spam.
> As to my signature file, you need to refresh yourself on internet
> protocol. It has been standard since the beginning of the net for up
> to 4 line signature block to be appended to messages as desired by the
> poster. I have been doing this for 14 years now and it's always been
> that way. The content of said signature file is up to the discretion
> of the poster and quite frankly is none of your damn business. "SPAM"
> which I object to as well, is the content of the post, not the sig
> block.
Like hell it is my business.
I have once before banned someone(s sig) with provocative political
content, and I have no problems doing that with blatant spam either.
> I would suggest you refresh your understanding on this before
> criticizing further, especially given you have a -10- line signature
> block which clearly deviates from accepted parameters.
Perhaps you should start counting characters, and not empty lines?
In the context of using bandwidth?
All this apart from the fact that this list has set a 10 line limit
on sigs, many moons ago....all in the context that bandwidth isn't
measured in lines, but in characters.
And also apart from the fact that sigs were never invented to contain
spam like yours does.
Or do you want me to go back even further in the non-profit spirit of
the Net, 14 years ago?
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
