This page is under construction 

                click for DEJA reference to this post

DK: These are entirely different threads posted to news.admin.net-abuse-usenet
I placed my post on one thread, and included alt.paranormal.  Bob Officer's
communications are with Andrew Gierth in NANAU news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.

DK: I was left out of this, because I did not look for different subjects, or something
that did not include alt.paranormal.  It seems, to me, like Bob Officer is quite dishonest.

From: bobo@NOSPAM.vornet.com (Bob Officer)
Subject: Attention: Andrew Gierth, Spam Clarification?
Date: 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37ba560b.89577481@news.supernews.com>

On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:06:44 -0700, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com> wrote:

>Bob Officer
<snip>
>> From the Spam FAQ
>> Last-modified: 1998/11/10
>> URL: http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
<snip>
>> "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>
>
>DK: 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"

BO: Yes, that spamy foreword you use boiler plate style in
BO: each of your reposts... That is what Tim is talking about...
BO: and in most cases it is word for word IDENTICAL.

DK: Funny thing, isn't it, that I only saw this comment to me,
DK: months later.  Note "you use" in the phrase.

DK: Funny thing, without any further involvement from me,
DK: it was all settled.  See this page for the results.

>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.

BO: Really Those which I have talked to are serious looking
BO: at the claims. It would be a method of reining in your
BO: abuse, and DAn they want to stop your Spam...

DK: Now, I am answering this on Oct. 17, 1999.  I have
DK: been posting this so-called "spam," you were answered
DK: again by Rebecca Ore Aug. 11, 1999, and your allegations
DK: are obviously BOGUS.  Since your statement above, I
DK: voluntarily quit PCI Systems which was using the RemarQ
DK: service.  RemarQ had discontinued the filters placed to
DK: prevent mention of my URL address.

DK: In other words, no one has paid much attention to you.
DK: Net abuse people are not interested, and ISPs
DK: are not.

DK: Now, I use Compuserve, and they obviously are
DK: not interested in your allegations.

>They all permit my posts to appear with _NO_ filters in place for any
>of the URLs referenced by me, that you protest about.

DK: I was referring to RemarQ above.

BO: Keep digging your hole deeper Dan...

>No spam cancels have come about.  DEJANEWS (www.deja.com) shows that.

BO: When they do they will...

DK:  You get funnier and funnier, like a clown.  This is Oct. 17, 1999, when I first
         see your writing above.  The reason I'm just seeing this is, for the most part,
         because you are so sneaky, and also because I didn't think you were that
         deceitful.

>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.

BO: There is three parts to each article. 1) the new information
BO: posted, 2)the quoted material, 3)and the signature.

BO: When the first part is "substantively identical" and the
BO: BI for the 1st part exceeds 20 it is cancelable... Andrew
BO: canceled Edmo's articles and he lost his earthlink account
BO: when he failed to heed all warnings. He was given many,
BO: many chances to stop.

DK:  First of all, as far as I'm concerned you have no credibility,
DK:  either for honesty, or for an ability to communicate with
DK:  much rational thought. All these pages from /bobofficer.html
DK:  reveal that.

DK:  Second of all, I've spent more time on this than I should.
DK:  The matter was settled months ago.  It is now Oct 17, 1999.
DK:  For that reason I will not check your allegations about
DK:  Edmond Wollmann, above.

DK: How can the 4 lines of a REPOST, identical to other
DK: posts, and the  other 96 lines make this post be
DK: "the material...sufficiently similar to construe the
DK: same message."  It is part of a message.

<snip>

BO: But you repost the 50 articles with the same
BO: "substantively identical" foreword in 45 days

DK:  It's not a substantively identical" foreward that
the FAQ refers to.  It is a substantively identical
post.

Quoting from the FAQ:

        "Substantively identical" means that the material in
         each article is sufficiently similar..."

DK: That is the material in the article, not the foreward.

All this was settled on this linked page, in further discussion
with Rebecca Ore.

<snip>

DK: ...and I have conversed with RemarQ (ie supernews) and have rebutted
DK: the assertions of the FANATICS in these newsgroups who wish to CENSOR
DK: me from exposing them through the material at the /news/index.html
DK: WEB SITE.  RemarQ agrees that my activity does not consitute "spam."

BO: I am assured they are looking into it...
BO: and a conference call is being scheduled.

DK: It's now October 17, and I'm reading the above for
DK: the first time.  It's ludicrous, even if they did have
DK: a conference call.  I imagine they asked each other
DK: how to get you to quit bothering them.

<snip>

Here is the reply from Andrew Gierth in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet

      CLICK HERE FOR DEJA ARCHIVED reference

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Attention: Andrew Gierth, Spam Clarification?
Date: 07 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <87u2qcm9fn.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Officer <bobo@NOSPAM.vornet.com> writes:

 [lots of stuff snipped]

You'll probably find things easier to understand if you realise
that the examples of different types of substantively identical
messages given in the thresholds FAQ are just that, _examples_.

The definitive test is "construes the same message".

--
Andrew.

DK: Isn't that what I wrote?  The definitive test is "construes the same message,"
DK: and it seems to me that the foreward, by itself, or the URL reference by itself,
DK: does not "construe the same message."