On 20 Nov 00 at 15:22, J.M. Vitoux wrote:
> Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > 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?
>
> Willem,
>
> As usual you are the one to decide on the rules for this mailing
> list. Although I do not particularly appreciate his sig, it is
> conform to what is generally accepted practice in newsgroups.
Ebay is also condoned (not accepted) on Usenet, in contrast to this
list (and many others, and including Philip Greenspun's site I
learned recentely).
>If
> you wish to adopt a different rule, fine but let it be clearly
> known.
> By usenet rules, his sig is clearly not spam. It is therefore
> somewhat unfair to accuse him of spamming if the list's rule do
> not specify that such sig is not tolerated in the first place.
It's not so much his sig that annoys me, but his arrogance in not
understanding how anyone could classify it as spam, in particular
very obvious anti-spam filters from individual list members.
Or to apply Kant: suppose an increasing amoung of members would have
these anti-spam filters implemented (can't blame them), and an
increasing number of these notices (and inherent discussion) would
disrupt this list....what should I ban, those with anti-spam filters
(can't check that at the moment of subscribing), or the sigs
triggering the anti-spam filters?
I do agree that rules should be clear and evident to all, but I
can't implement rules before the problem surfaces....and the problem
isn't so much his sig, but refusing to understand how anyone
could consider it as spam, hence not cooperating in any way to
eliminate the problem in whatever way.
Such behaviour leaves me little alternatives other than banning these
sigs....or: if that is the typical attitude, then I have my typical
solution....lest someone gets the impression that they have a
godgiven right to spam.
--
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
***********************************************************
