On Thu, 26 May 2005 00:43:21 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:04:52 -0500, B.B.
.ru wrote:

Technically, you didn't SPAM. Spamming is posting an ad many times
or to many places.

Well, that's one definition. And he did hit at least here and the
wooddorking group. google would, of course, give the whole list.

The standard I saw a long time ago was square root of number of
groups cross-posted to plus the square root of the number of duplicate
posts = 20. So it worked out to needing 400 cross-posted groups, or
400 duplicate posts, or some combination in-between. Real spammers hit
that mark easily. Guys like Len don't come even close.

Yes, there are many ways to define it. For any definition you can give,
I could give another which includes "one is enough", which is the one I
choose to use.

Of course, that isn't carved in stone or anything, so what is or
isn't SPAM can vary from place to place or person to person. I just
stick with that standard because it's pretty much the threshold used by
the auto-cancelers and most ISPs. That way by the time I'm bitching
about someone spamming it's to the level that they have an excuse for
(or even interest in) dealing with the offender.

Well, there's different levels of spam, sure. This guy, a simple "don't
do that" from several people, seems to have fixed. The idiots who post
what more permissive definitions consider to be spam, get reported. I
didn't send this to his ISP or their upstream, because to his credit, he
eventually "got it". If he'd followed up with "Screw you, I can do what
I want, here's more spam", then I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one
forwarding his posts to his ISP and to eBay.

Is the horse dead yet?