chraming so you have updated this spam

In .com "an_old_friend" writes:

chraming so you have updated this spam

It's probably time to put out the (UPDATE, LONG) posting at the next
report to the newsgroup. In the meantime, I can at least post my
standard rebuttal to accusations that this project is SPAM.

This project is not SPAM for the following reasons, some of which are
common sense, some of which are legal (based on an informal opinion from
a local lawyer with some expertise in Internet-related law; since this
was just consultation and not a formal client relationship, take with
the appropriate disclaimers).

- It is arguably not SPAM to send a response to a specific post, on a
specific newsgroup, for a specific newsgroup-related reason, and do so
one time to a given user. The automation is merely a means to an end,
and does not, in and of itself, constitute SPAM. When you post to a
newsgroup, you invite a reasonable amount of replies on topics
relevant to that post and that newsgroup.

- The small number of messages sent on a daily basis (usually no more
than 10-15) keeps it under arbitrary definitions of SPAM without
even considering exceptions or discretion (usually 25, as in the Novia
AUP).

- Unlike most all SPAM, the message is from a specific, real originator
who reads and replies to all responses (if you write to me in reply to
the message, I will get your message, will read it with interest, and
will promptly send you a polite, considered reply). I realize that
sending such a message invites replies, and I welcome them.

- The originator's ISP is clearly identified, and has a real address
where you can direct any concerns and likely also receive a polite,
considered reply.

- Inherent in this project is a "do not call" list. You are
automatically put on it the first time you post, but can also be added
to it at any time by writing to .

and this one is the most interesting of all (told to me by the lawyer):

- SPAM by most laws and regulations aimed at it, is defined as having
*commercial* content. While I believe that other aspects of the content
and how its presented does affect whether it is abusive or not, in terms
of most laws established to date, my message is arguably not SPAM simply
because it is not commercial in nature.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com "an_old_friend" writes:

chraming so you have updated this spam

It's probably time to put out the (UPDATE, LONG) posting at the next
report to the newsgroup. In the meantime, I can at least post my
standard rebuttal to accusations that this project is SPAM.

This project is not SPAM for the following reasons, some of which are
common sense, some of which are legal (based on an informal opinion from
a local lawyer with some expertise in Internet-related law; since this
was just consultation and not a formal client relationship, take with
the appropriate disclaimers).
it is unsolictied not related to the post in the first place spam is
the best fit of the current crop of terms
till a better word for noncomercail bulk is coined spam will do (if you
are aware of a term in general use for private email in reposnse to a
public posting {a break of manners right there} that is generic aand
undirected I am willing listen and consider til then it is psam and
Nowhere did I suhgest it rose to the level of being illegal

ass****ed by an_old_friend wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com "an_old_friend" writes:

chraming so you have updated this spam

It's probably time to put out the (UPDATE, LONG) posting at the next
report to the newsgroup. In the meantime, I can at least post my
standard rebuttal to accusations that this project is SPAM.

This project is not SPAM for the following reasons, some of which are
common sense, some of which are legal (based on an informal opinion from
a local lawyer with some expertise in Internet-related law; since this
was just consultation and not a formal client relationship, take with
the appropriate disclaimers).
it is

STFU, spammer.