Re: SPAM DB 1.6.0 has been released

From: Ed Prochak <ed.prochak_at_magicinterface.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:53:05 -0500
Message-ID: <Mdy1c.772$xL.155@fe03.usenetserver.com>

Ed Avis wrote:

> Hans Forbrich <hforbric_at_yahoo.net> writes:
>
>

>>1) How do we let people know that ANY post which has the primary
>>purpose being to announce a [product, web_site, event, tool, utility,
>>baby, beer_store, anything_else] should be posted in
>>comp.database.oracle.marketplace?

>
>
> By updating the charter. At present the charter says, quite clearly,
> that commercial messages should go in that group and not .misc - and
> the charter for .marketplace says it is for commercial messages.
> Therefore, if you want to exclude *non*-commercial messages as well
> you must update the charter. At the moment they are permitted.

That begs the question of what constitutes a "commercial" posting.

>
>

>>2) What is the recommended response to posters who ignore that
>>request?

>
>
> Let's worry about that when the charter has been updated, so there
> will be an unambiguous document you can point them to to say they are
> in the wrong.
>

Actually there is the group consensus which can restrict topics in a group, sometimes even more than a charter might. From the "Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It"

FAQ found at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1/ which contains this little gem:
> This is not to say that on-topic notices will always be welcome; the
> proliferation of inappropriate advertisements (ads posted in the wrong way
> to the wrong place) has resulted in *all* ads, even informational notices
> posted to appropriate newsgroups, tending to get a cold shoulder. You can
> help by limiting your ads to *informational* postings posted *only*
> *where* *appropriate*, and abiding by any local restrictions a given
> newsgroup's readers have placed on advertising.

Note the final sentence. In another FAQ (which I cannot remember at the moment) suggests new readers should browse a group for a bit before posting, mainly to get a sense of the group's culture. This culture would include the extra-charter restrictions a group might have. And it's what makes discussions like this worth having because this thread will show both the group consensus and dissenting voices.

And after a little review, it seems to me, Skid read the Emily Postnews FAQ, but did not take it's "tongue in cheek" satire into account.

Some of us have been around newgroups so long that we forgot this all has to be learned. IOW, netiquette is not intuitive.

Respectfully,
  ed

-- 
Ed Prochak
running    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost

Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 22:53:05 CST