Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Definition of ‘spam’ (was: Re: PATH header preloading allowed at ES?)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Blue-Maned_Hawk
Feb 15, 2024, 5:13:51 PM2/15/24
to
VanguardLH wrote:
> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but I
> also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his site
> that he spams in his signature.
The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a perfectly-
compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dʰak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
The use of ‘#include_next’ can lead to great confusion.
> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but I
> also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his site
> that he spams in his signature.
The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a perfectly-
compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
--
Blue-Maned_Hawk│shortens to
Hawk│/
blu.mɛin.dʰak/
│he/him/his/himself/Mr.
blue-maned_hawk.srht.site
The use of ‘#include_next’ can lead to great confusion.
J. P. Gilliver
Feb 15, 2024, 8:32:37 PM2/15/24
to
In message <pan$803c7$a55b7a6$b0567a32$1e2c...@invalid.invalid> at Thu,
15 Feb 2024 22:13:49, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluema...@invalid.invalid>
writes
[]
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver
15 Feb 2024 22:13:49, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluema...@invalid.invalid>
writes
[]
>The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a perfectly-
>compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
>do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
>considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
>
I've never seen "it'sn't" before, but I don't think I can fault it!
>compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
>do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
>considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver
Daniel65
Feb 16, 2024, 2:56:47 AM2/16/24
to
Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote on 16/2/24 9:13 am:
Is it trying to tell you something?? ;-)
--
Daniel
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but
>> I also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his
>> site that he spams in his signature.
>
> The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a
> perfectly- compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader
> corrupting it. I do not think that can reasonably be considered
> spam, especially considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
Sorry! Your own newsreader is corrupting your sig file!!
>
>> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but
>> I also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his
>> site that he spams in his signature.
>
> The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a
> perfectly- compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader
> corrupting it. I do not think that can reasonably be considered
> spam, especially considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
Is it trying to tell you something?? ;-)
--
Daniel
immibis
Feb 17, 2024, 6:55:34 PM2/17/24
to
On 15/02/24 23:13, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but I
>> also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his site
>> that he spams in his signature.
>
> The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a perfectly-
> compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
> do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
> considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
Usenet "spam" is only defined as posting a large number of identical or
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Makes it easy to filter out Blue_Maned-Hawk on the PATH header, but I
>> also have a From filter on him. Guess he used the domain for his site
>> that he spams in his signature.
>
> The link i put to my site is a single line in what would be a perfectly-
> compliant 78×4 signature were it not for my newsreader corrupting it. I
> do not think that can reasonably be considered spam, especially
> considering that it'sn't exactly a rare practice.
mostly identical messages. It does not encompass other forms of
potentially unwanted messages or content.
0 new messages