On 19 Nov 00 at 23:30, Paul Prior MD 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."
Good.
Read that again, and notice this is a mailinglist, not a newsgroup,
and that the listowner decides what is acceptable or not.
> CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT.
But offtopic content aggrevates spam, at least on the annoyance
factor. And that's where I step in as a listowner, whether you like
it or not.
> '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?"
It appears with each and every one of your messages....containing
nothing less than a click-through banner to a commercial site, with
direct personal gain.
> 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?
No, the fact that your definition denies that mailinglists can be
spammed at all is enough proof that you still don't understand the
difference between Usenet and mailinglists.
There is lots of behaviour on Usenet that would not get someone into
problems with his ISP, but would result in uns_ubscribing from this (and
other) lists immediately.
Like it is also quite easy for a spammer to stay below the
cancel-threshold, while still posting blatant advertisings regularly.
By your definition, I should not consider it as spam, and allow
it on the list....like hell I will.
> >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.
YOU came with the bandwidth argument, by pointing to my sig; and that
argument is mooth, since bandwidth is measured in characters (and
line-breaks), not in lines.
Feel free to create a message containing 10 empty lines vs one
containing 4 lines full of characters, and see which file size is
the largest. Bytes don't lie.
> >> 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.
By your definition, this list couldn't be spammed at all.
Shall I forward all the crap to you that is filtered out by Majordomo
daily?
>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....
Don't tempt me to rectify my initial reply that you were not booted
from this list.
Your reaction on a obvious, logical and legitimate anti-spam filter
from an individual member was arrogant, and still is.
> >> 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.
Instructions how to uns_ubscribe are in the admin footer of every list
message.
> >> 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?
Do you have reading problems?
Janne and I decided not to enforce the 4-line limit many many moons
ago....with very good reason, being that bandwidth isn't measured in
lines in the first place.
> 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.
Seems you still confuse Usenet with mailinglists.
The only one interested in how much mailfeed this list generates is
my provider....backbones are completely irrelevant, and couldn't care
less whether I allowed a 1000 line sig or not.
> >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.
Seems you do want me to rectify my comment about you being booted.
> >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?
Perhaps you should start reading the EOS-List-FAQ....it clearly
states that commercial advertisings are forbidden.
And if I don't classify your click-through banner as commercial,
nothing is.
> >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 I doubt click-through banners existed back then, nor would they
have been allowed.
Any idea why newsgroups like rec.photo.marketplace.ebay will never
see the light of dawn? The same would happen with any group
containing .ebates. *THOSE* contain the Usenet spirit more than any
definition of spam ever will.
> 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.
I never stated anything about bandwidth, other than falsifying your
claim that my sig consumes more bandwidth than yours....the argument
itself is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
--
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
***********************************************************
