RE: No postnews or other Usenet news utilities?

["Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>]

On 25 May 2006 02:54, Bruce Wehr wrote:

> To me, "spam" is like a shotgun.  Indiscriminate blasting that not only
> covers the intended target, but wholly inappropriate targets too.
> (Collateral damage? Like if I tried to post to all 100,000+ groups.)

  On usenet, spam has a strictly technical definition: any post with BI>20.
This definition is deliberately content-neutral and entirely mathematical in
order to avoid any subjective decisions which might be biased by personal
prejudices.  It is not my decision and it is not your decision; it is the
established standard, it has been for many years, it was arrived at after
literally years of debate and wrangling as an acceptable compromise by the
vast majority concensus of admins of the major usenet backbone sites; there is
no arguing with it and nothing to discuss.  Break it and you will be
cancelled; break it repeatedly and your ISP will, perhaps sooner, perhaps
later, be obliged to disconnect you.  This is just the fact of the matter.

> As for my second post, my only regret was calling Dave an uncivil name.  I
> should never have stooped that low.  Dave, you may read this list, but I'm
> CCing you too (just in case), because I would like to apologize for that.

  That is very decent of you :)  In exchange I have made a helpful suggestion
back on the main list.  But you must still be aware: it's not your decision
whether your actions constitute spam, it is the joint decision of the admins
whose machines and network resources you are being given license to make use
of to carry your post, because those machines are *their* machines, and they
have property rights over them to set their own policies on their own
machines.  Stick to the guidelines in the FAQ, and the whole world will smile
upon you; break them, and, as Gary said, there's a special circle reserved in
hell for the spammers.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....