Re: Internet Firewall FAQ in Dutch
From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:06:42 -0600
Followup-To: set to comp.security.misc
In article <oqKdnR1yXJxYuJffRVn-hA@speakeasy.net>, email@example.com wrote:
>Perhaps you ought to reconsider your definition of "spam."
Why? There is a perfectly adequate on posted weekly to
called "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines" (all 162
lines of it). By that document, this junk didn't hit the definition of
spam, only because it was only spewed to a "few" groups. It's certainly
going to hit the BI=20 threshold if posted again (it's at 13 in seven
days by my count right now).
The idiot posted the same articles to multiple newsgroups, without
bothering to see if this was normal or on-topic for those groups, never
mind setting a followup header. I also notice that he doesn't seem to
have paid attention to earlier negative responses a week ago in the group
'comp.security.firewalls' where it probably was somewhat closer to being
on topic though equally unwanted. The fact that it seems to be a poorly
written document incompetently "translated" isn't relevant to the _spam_
issue though certainly relevant to the _abuse_ issue. But it's obviously
a classic example of wasted bandwidth.
He posted from a cable connection - hopefully Cox canceled his account
for abuse complaints - ignoring the fact that the documents are seen
world wide, and that some people don't have wide bandwidth connections,
and that some people AND COMPANIES pay for the number of bytes received.