Re: SPAM DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:34:59 -0800
Message-ID: <1077989665.620965@yasure>

Ed Avis wrote:

> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> writes:
>
>

>>>I agree that messages from vendors do not belong on the group.  But
>>>that is not the same as messages from individuals talking about
>>>projects they develop on an unpaid basis.
>>
>>I agree. The point where I draw the line, others may draw it
>>elsewhere, is when there is a for-profit organization with a business
>>license waiting in the wings.

>
>
> I think this is right, and I would class articles about software
> offering a 'free evaluation version' or limited-use licence as spam.
> But I don't think that is the case here.

Why not? The name of the product is clearly stated in the "subject" above which you have dutifully reposted. How does that not qualify as product promotion?

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Sat Feb 28 2004 - 11:34:59 CST