Re: permitted cross-posting for genuine FAQs

---------

Larry W. Virden, x2487 (lvirden@cas.org)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:50:02 -0500


From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
> People have to stay away from the idea that FAQs and "legitimate
> announcements" have any more claim to legitimacy (read: exemption from
> spam definitions) than anything else. The only reason why spam cancellation
> is accepted is that the spam definition completely avoids confering
> legitimacy or lack of it on the content. If we exempt "legitimate
> announcements", then who decides? Everything is legitimate in at least
> one person's eyes.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at things. I've never considered
spam as 'crosses this many newsgroups' - I still have held that for me,
spam is information inappropriately appearing in a newsgroup. The number
of the groups is inconsequential.

Unfortunately, some folk have had a field day classifing all sorts of things
'spam' which under that definition don't qualify.

This brings to mind several similar cases in the past 15 years - the letters
"PC" , the phrase "windows", the term "hacker", etc.

All of these had legitimate meanings, but the meaning was perverted into
something (obscene, some would say) by the 'popular press'.

Frankly, if I were Hormel, I would begin prosecution left and right...

-- 
Larry W. Virden                 INET: lvirden@cas.org
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.