According to http://www.novia.net/acceptable/ (emphasis added),

"It is contrary to the Acceptable Use Policy of Novia for a direct
customer, or for an Internet Service Provider customer to permit any
third party, to use any Novia service, directly or indirectly, for the
purpose of unsolicited mass transmissions or multiple or inappropriate
postings in a manner which, IN NOVIA'S SOLE JUDGEMENT AND DISCRETION,
is abusive, offensive, inappropriate or unacceptable." [...]

Note the words "in Novia's sole judgement and discretion."  I have
specific approval to undertake this project because of its redeeming
value and public benefit.  Obviously, no written policy can cover all
contingencies, and discretion on the part of the ISP is sometimes
necessary to determine the appropriateness of individual usage on a
case-by-case basis.

It was obvious from the start that I would not be able to obtain total
consensus for this project from the readers of rec.radio.amateur.misc.
There will be a small, inconsolable minority with whom I will have to
agree to disagree.  I've asserted this before, and will do so again:

This project operates with 99.5% tacit approval, or at least lack of
expressed disapproval, of the recipients.

0.5% of 15,000 is about 75.  The number of negative complaints over the
last 3 years is most certainly bounded by that number (I believe that
it's bounded by 50, and possibly even 35, which would be approximately
one per month).  In terms of actual replies sent, positive replies
outnumber negative ones by 2 to 1, possibly even 3 to 1, and I count
messages like, "This is kind of long to read" or "I've been posting to
this newsgroup for 10 years" as negative replies, so they're not all at
the same level of objection.

Furthermore, though such discussion is certainly valuable and welcome,
it's only because I've engaged in full disclosure on this newsgroup as
to my project, its purpose, and implications (both positive and
negative) that we are even having this discussion on the newsgroup at
all.  If there was tremendous hue and cry over what I was doing in the
absence of my making periodic updates to the newsgroup, that would be
one thing.  Instead, what happens is that I get maybe 1 or 2 complaints
in followup to my update message, and the thread quickly dies within a
few days.  Without such updates, this project is essentially invisible.

This project is not SPAM for the following reasons, some of which are
common sense, some of which are legal (based on an informal opinion from
a local lawyer with some expertise in Internet-related law; since this
was just consultation and not a formal client relationship, take with
the appropriate disclaimers).

- It is arguably not SPAM to send a response to a specific post, on a
  specific newsgroup, for a specific newsgroup-related reason, and do so
  one time to a given user.  The automation is merely a means to an end,
  and does not, in and of itself, constitute SPAM.  When you post to a
  newsgroup, you invite a reasonable amount of replies on topics
  relevant to that post and that newsgroup.

- The small number of messages sent on a daily basis (usually no more
  than 10-15) keeps it under arbitrary definitions of SPAM without
  even considering exceptions or discretion (usually 25, as in the Novia
  AUP).

- Unlike most all SPAM, the message is from a specific, real originator
  who reads and replies to all responses (if you write to me in reply to
  the message, I will get your message, will read it with interest, and
  will promptly send you a polite, considered reply).  I realize that
  sending such a message invites replies, and I welcome them.

- The originator's ISP is clearly identified, and has a real address
  where you can direct any concerns and likely also receive a polite,
  considered reply.

- Inherent in this project is a "do not call" list.  You are
  automatically put on it the first time you post, but can also be added
  to it at any time by writing to pschl...@novia.net.

and this one is the most interesting of all (told to me by the lawyer):

- SPAM by most laws and regulations aimed at it, is defined as having
  *commercial* content.  While I believe that other aspects of the content
  and how its presented does affect whether it is abusive or not, in terms
  of most laws established to date, my message is arguably not SPAM simply
  because it is not commercial in nature.