Re: REVIEW: "Computer Viruses for Dummies", Peter Gregory

From: Adrian Pavone (a.pavone_at_optusnet.com.au)
Date: 01/17/05

  • Next message: Adrian Pavone: "Re: Firewall problems" 
    Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:11:55 +0800

    "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
    news:41e95e06$0$46605$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl...
    > Adrian Pavone <a.pavone@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
    >>
    >> Lol, I agree that it isn't spam, but you do know that Michael would just
    >> come back with the fact that there are a number of reviews here (all on
    >> topic though).
    >
    > Please note my/the "unique" qualifier! It is irrelevant if there are
    > "a number", for any value of "a number". If they are unique (in
    > content), i.e. not "substantively identical", and not crossposted/
    > multiposted to too many [1] groups (re: the Breidbart Index (BI)), then
    > they are not "spam".
    >
    > Many people think that "spam" means unwanted/off-topic/etc., but it
    > doesn't. For what it *does* mean, see the below mentioned "FAQ: Current
    > Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines".
    >
    > So Michael J. Pelletier should explain what *he* means by his
    > (mis)qualification "spam"/"SPAM" and then we can see if it makes any
    > sense.
    >
    >> Thanks for correcting him on the SPAM postings ;). Didn't even occur to
    >> me
    >> to.
    >>
    >> Adrian
    >
    > [1]
    > For a crossposted article to be spam, it would have to be crossposted to
    > at least 400 (four hundred) groups.
    > For a multiposted article to be spam, it would have to be multiposted to
    > at least 20 (twenty) groups.
    > [See "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines"
    > <http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html>.]

    Ahh, so you already had your response planned. Good job.

    Adrian

  • Next message: Adrian Pavone: "Re: Firewall problems"

    Relevant Pages
    Loading