From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5932 invoked by alias); 25 May 2006 09:44:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 5920 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2006 09:44:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 May 2006 09:44:27 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 May 2006 10:44:24 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 May 2006 10:44:24 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Bruce Wehr'" , "'nanoo nanau!'" Subject: RE: No postnews or other Usenet news utilities? Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <004f01c67fdf$ce836530$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <007c01c67f9e$1eef7e10$3100000a@microline.mtc> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 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....