} Unfortunately, some folk have had a field day classifing all sorts of things
} 'spam' which under that definition don't qualify.
Right. Problem being you're using the word "spam" wrong ;-)
I think there are several conversations going on here.
Definitions, pedantic mode on:
1) Spam: same thing lots of times.
2) Cancellable spam: same thing lots of times, with BI (which factors
in posting count and crossposting) > 20.
3) Cross-posting restriction: usually imposed by individual systems
filtering their own feeds.
No FAQ is (2). Some FAQs get caught by (3).
We can't change the definition of (2) to read "...except if it's a FAQ",
(we get accused of unfair favouritism) but this isn't a problem, because
no FAQ is (2) anyways. If one was, it _should_ be cancelled.
Larry's "spam" is inappropriate/off charter postings. That's never
really been close to the right definition, Jargon File notwithstanding.
} All of these had legitimate meanings, but the meaning was perverted into
} something (obscene, some would say) by the 'popular press'.
"Spam" was originally (way back with Clarence Thomas IV, and Canter
and Siegal):
"EMP": excessive multiple postings (one group each).
Nothing to do with the popular press.
Then they started calling excessive cross postings (ECP) level
"Velveeta".
Then they started calling lots of postings, highly crossposted
"Jello".
That was getting ridiculous... So I invented EMP/ECP, and started
using "spam" to apply to both.
} Frankly, if I were Hormel, I would begin prosecution left and right...
Too late... On the other hand, when Hormel has nice juicy defamatory
targets, they act. I think they sued Sanford Wallace for calling
himself "The Spam King".
-- Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated. Cold but happy, please pass the thermos!For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org