On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:37:42 +0100, "Willem-Jan Markerink"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Well it would appear SOMEONE needs to lecture you, given you seem to
have absolutely no understanding what the term means. Perhaps you
might wish to make a short trip to the news.admin.net-abuse.usenet FAQ
where you might find the following definition:
"2.1) What is Spam?
It's a luncheon meat, kinda pink, comes in a can, made by Hormel. Most
Americans intuitively, viscerally associate "Spam" with "no nutritive
or aesthetic value," though it is still relatively popular (especially
in Hawaii) and can be found in almost any grocery store.) The canned
luncheon meat has its own newsgroup, alt.spam.
The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "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?"
Hmmm... seems the experts in the field completely differ with you.
Might you take that as a hint that you are wrong? Would you like me
to post additional material showing that indeed you do need the
lecture you decry above?
>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.
Actually, you're making my point for me here. But the point you are
clearly missing is that all the fuss you are making here is about my
freaking SIG file - not the content of my post. I've seen LOTS of
signature files over the years that either irritated me, made me
laugh, or were just a plain waste of space, but you are among a
(thankfully) rare few that try to control other's sig file contents.
If you don't like it - ignore it. It's NOT eating up bandwidth, as I
will discuss below. In short, make an appointment with your therapist
and work out that stress elsewhere.
>> 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.
See above, your name throwing is even more laughable because it is you
that is flat out wrong - it obviously is NOT spam by ANY accepted
definition. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you can invent
and twist the language to fit your little tantrums. Specifically read
the last couple lines of the definition above and you'll see where you
are so sadly mistaken. I think the term arrogant is much better
suited for someone who attacks when he is wrong, myself....
>> 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.
Yawn. My life will go on. You want to set a precedent here that YOU
control the content of signature files and if you don't agree with
someone they go, fine. The net is a big place, I've got lots to do
and spending time with self righteous wanna-be control freaks who feel
the need to "ban" on something so harmless as a 4 line signature block
is not high on my list.
>> 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?
Perhaps you should learn how internet traffic is routed. Lines do
matter. But regardless of that, now once again the widely accepted
tradition of 4 line sig files is thrown out when it doesn't meet YOUR
desires. Rules only matter when they suit you, huh? With your
argument I could have a 240 line signature file with one character on
each line. See how many friends that makes you in the net backbone
business.
>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.
Ah, grasshopper, how wrong you are. But that doesn't surprise me.
>And also apart from the fact that sigs were never invented to contain
>spam like yours does.
Oh, I forgot YOU were the one that decided for everyone else on the
net what signature blocks are for. Let's see, so far we have no
politics and nothing whatsoever to do with money. Any other rules you
have for the rest of us serfs or is that it for now until you have
your next hissy fit?
>Or do you want me to go back even further in the non-profit spirit of
>the Net, 14 years ago?
I think I can match you on that one. Doubt you were on then, by your
ignorance of the history and misunderstanding of widely held
terminology.
And if you are really so concerned about wasting bandwidth, might I
suggest you consider that your hot-headed reply has consumed far more
than likely all my replies to this mailing list would have generated
for the next year. If you find yourself inclined to bash your head up
against the wall of facts any further and reply to this, you'll be
proving my point further.
--
Paul Prior MD Get rebates from online purchases - up to 30% cash back.
Coshocton, OH Includes: Disney,Borders,Wine.com,800.com,Dell,petstore
Solo Practice uBid,more.com,JCrew,800-flowers,Avon, WWF & hundreds more.
OB/GYN Try: http://www.ebates.com/index.jhtml?referrer=pprior
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
