Re: Where is the charter for comp.unix.solaris?

Cypherpunk_at_nyc.rr.com
Date: 07/13/03 

Date: 13 Jul 2003 14:51:57 GMT

Mike Mann <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
> Anythony Manic <jy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm ... Hormel Foods have a different definition of spam -
> > http://media.hormel.com/anm/templates/spam_museum.asp?articleid=8&zoneid=11
> > (Yeah, I know its not their definition but I think the SPAM
> > Museum is more interesting).
>
> Words have different meanings in different contexts.
>
> > By your definition, junk mail flooding my email inboxes isn't
> > spam. Also by your definition, off-topic posts aren't spam but
> > long running crossposted threads are. Strange.
>
> Indeed. Junk mail is UCE (unsolicited commercial email) although the
> term "spam" has been extended by usage to include UCE. I've never
> heard of anyone descibe off-topic posts as spam unless they are widely
> cross- or multi- posted, in which case the term is correct.

Actually, as far as TV, newspaper and Bills in Congress go
here in the U.S., UCE is referred to as spam. The same thing
mailed many times, I guess.

Mike Mann <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>
> All the spam-cancellers are very clear about the definition
> of cancellable spam being content-neutral.
>
> Cypherpunk@nyc.rr.com wrote:
>
> >However, a _single_ MMF (Make Money Fast) post is considered
> >abuse *of* the net, and subject to the same sanctions. That is a
> >content based decision, obviously.
>
> Or is considered to be "substantively identical" to all the MMF
> postings that have gone before and therefore hits the Briedbart
> threshold in a single additional posting.

Oh, that's clever.

The difference being, no time range documentation needed,
as required by the very definition of BI? ;-)

Anyone claiming it's not solely a content based decision is in denial.

No BI documentation is made. Spam-cancellers document the BI
of spam when sending complaints to ISPs by enumerating enough
posts to demonstrate BI > 20.

Relevant Pages