GOOGLE ARCHIVED COPY OF THIS POST
The GOOGLE archive is exactly as it appears below...
From: bobo@NOSPAM.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
Subject: Attention: Andrew Gierth, Spam Clarification?
Date: 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <37AA3524.9CC254C5@psicounsel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Officer's Mess
On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:06:44 -0700, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Dan
Kettler <email@example.com> wrote:
>> From the Spam FAQ
>> Last-modified: 1998/11/10
>> URL: http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
>> Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
>> "Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
>> sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
>> included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
>> identical articles:
>> - byte-for-byte identical messages [dk item 1]
>> - advertising the same service. [dk item 2]
>> - articles that consist solely of the same signature [dk item 3]
>> - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
>> postings, but are otherwise identical. [dk item 4]
>> <End quote>
>Your writing in protest to my including a short introduction to REPOSTS,
>claim that a short identical portion of the post consitutes a
> "substantively identical"
Yes, that spamy foreword you use boiler plate style in each of your
reposts... That is what Tim is talking about... and in most cases it
is word for word IDENTICAL.
>It is for this "reason" you assume some "BI" count. No-one else who
>discusses these points in detail (other than assertions without
>details) assumes such, only you. Others, even those of your own
>persuasion have argued against you in these newsgroups. The ISPs
>Compuserve, PCI Systems, (and RemarQ who sends their posts) and
>DEJANEWS who allows my posts evidently do not agree either.
Really Those which I have talked to are serious looking at the claims.
It would be a method of reining in your abuse, and DAn they want to
stop your Spam...
>They all permit my posts to appear with _NO_ filters in place for any
>of the URLs referenced by me, that you protest about.
Keep digging your hole deeper Dan...
>No spam cancels have come about. DEJANEWS (www.deja.com) shows that.
When they do they will...
>For item 1 to apply to my posts, the entire post would have to be
>identical. Since I'm not advertising, the second item does not apply.
>The articles do not consist of _one part_, a signature, which is the
>same in each post. The articles do not consist of inclusions
>of other user's postings, but are otherwise identical.
There is three parts to each article. 1) the new information posted,
2)the quoted material, 3)and the signature.
When the first part is "substantively identical" and the BI for the
1st part exceeds 20 it is cancelable... Andrew canceled Edmo's
articles and he lost his earthlink account when he failed to heed all
warnings. He was given many, many chances to stop.
>Quoting from the FAQ:
> "Substantively identical" means that the material
> in each article is sufficiently similar to construe
> the same message."
>How can the 4 lines of a REPOST, identical to other posts, and the
>other 96 lines make this post be "the material...sufficiently similar
>to construe the same _message_." It is _part_ of a message.
it is simple... subtract the reposted material, and what left is the
article which is subject to a BI count...
>Now to the dictionary... "substantive"
> "...of considerable amount or quantity, substantial"
>If I repost an article 2 times in 45 days, and in the beginning of
>that post which consists of, usually, about 100 lines, the same thing
>I'm placing in a number of other posts, only it's 4 lines long, that
>is not a ...
But you repost the 50 articles with the same "substantively identical"
foreword in 45 days (which is what you have done) then the all
articles are considered Spam BI=[50*sqrt(1)].
This is what Wollmann did when andrew canceled his messages and he
lost his earthlink account.
> < < "...of considerable
amount or quantity, substantially" > >
>sustantively identical post.
>In fact, 4 lines out of 100 is about 4 percent. 4 percent is not
>a substantial portion, so it is not "substantively identical."
But it is what is counted... You only add a forewords and a signature,
the reposted article is dropped. and you have the same spam...
> That defines your Spam. The boiler plate
> foreword which you add when you repost...
>> I will say it again for people that just didn't understand it..
>> - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
>> postings, but are otherwise identical.
>Where are the "other user's postings" in REPOSTS?
That which didn't come from you, you writing as yourself..
>The reference to "other user's postings" is not reposting of
>other people's material, it is _replying_ to a post of "other"
>people, and including their text.
Sigh you are really clueless...
When you take an article and repost it. That article isn't counted
towards BI (unless you reposted the same article 19 more times.) but
what is counted is your foreword, just like Edmo's "Snip and
complaints sent" which was canceled and used as the basis to nuke his
>> Reposting of articles... and including the same text ( your why to
>> repost boiler plate)or advertising the same services (that IS your Web
>No, the "same" text you refer to is not necessarily spam. There are
>no "advertisements" for services. I am referencing URLs with text
>in them, not services.
Don't consider the context.. your foreword is almost byte for byte
>As an example, this is not a "service," as the FAQ you quote
> It explains, with
references to appropriate FAQs, like the
> quoted, what "spam" is and what "spam" is not.
Hey I posted the words right from the FAQ. TIM's own writings not a
>> You have exceed a BI of over 20 for all of your reposted articles.
>> cc: supernews.general
>...and I have conversed with RemarQ (ie supernews) and have rebutted
>the assertions of the FANATICS in these newsgroups who wish to CENSOR
>me from exposing them through the material at the /news/index.html
>WEB SITE. RemarQ agrees that my activity does not consitute "spam."
I am assured they are looking into it...
and a conference call is being scheduled.
>More on CULT ACTIVITY on the INTERNET at...
<snip Of URL>
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited. All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.