RFD: change charter of uk.telecom.mobile
Grant Mason
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.telecom.mobile
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
Rationale uk.telecom.mobile
There is very little history of on-topic advertising in uk.telecom.mobile
that complies with the narrow definition found in the current charter. Given
that uk.adverts.telecom.mobile fits the needs of those that wish to post
and/or read mobile related adverts, a number of regular posters to
uk.telecom.mobile have agreed with the suggestion that the charter should be
changed.
And whilst I'm here, I might as well take the opportunity to replace the
current binary wording with that which is now considered 'standard'.
Charter uk.telecom.mobile
REPLACE:
"Advertisements are not allowed, except one posting of 3 lines + URL for new
services/products that are significantly different from that currently
available.
Binaries are not permitted on this group, however references to FTP-able
material and Web URL's are allowed."
WITH:
"Advertising is forbidden.
Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which
a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP)
may be used where authentication is important and should be as
short as possible.
Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
common newsreaders comply with this, read
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>."
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until May 18th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce.
Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.telecom.mobile
uk.telecom
uk.adverts.telecom.mobile
Proponent:
Grant Mason <utm...@mason.sh.invalid>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBPrmGi2OfGXkh8vHZAQENVQP/Yay2Oy/SEKOFNuCrdc6MTUMbK6zu/pT1
VVt37qWkzxFDy+oRDKWsomwD/MYknmjB4RFqSqr38mlvgw0jgr6RucMGEO/1kZ9w
cIwR0UU8yfHHX6+b5Lp/EMLh7dnKmmiKk/lLrFuT+YT/IRJg4N9EOZjFtloqfwVg
7R+UiGS88n8=
=WCzu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
www.mobilespares.co.uk
reading into your idea it would tend to suggest that this group is done away
with completely?
i.e. no adverts?
This is an adverts group is it not? So why not advertise?
We do not do a huge amount of advertising on here AT ALL but do find it useful
from time to time.
I fear what you state was for the alt.nokia news group as I do recall this
format being put forward about 6 - 10 months ago?
I do tend to agree with what you state in other groups less the bit about
signatures as the chances of most traders remembering to change their signature
will be minimal and rather unfair.
I think ALL adverts should be now left to this NG UNLESS it is of huge interest
to others, such as a brand new format of goods etc available.
???
Ally Strachan
MOBILE SPARES - www.mobilespares.co.uk
Mobile phone spares, parts, accessories, unlocking, LEDs
sales...@mobilespares.co.uk (remove NOSPAM to email)
DO NOT REPLY TO THE AOL EMAIL PLEASE
Tony Walton
> <snip>
>
> reading into your idea it would tend to suggest that this group is done away
> with completely?
>
> i.e. no adverts?
>
> This is an adverts group is it not? So why not advertise?
Read the subject line again. This RFD refers to uk.telecom.mobile, not
uk.adverts.telecom.mobile.
Regards
Tony
Steve Dulieu
"Grant Mason" <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote in message
news:rfd1-charter-uk.telecom.mobile-20030507221836$a4...@control.clues.com...
--
Cheers, Steve.
If The Good Lord had meant for us to be fiscally prudent, He would not have
given us the platinum credit card...
Change colour to PC Plod's lights to reply.
Tony Walton
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.telecom.mobile
I support this change
--
Tony Walton
Nadeem
<snip>
> REPLACE:
>
> "Advertisements are not allowed, except one posting of 3 lines + URL
> for new services/products that are significantly different from that
> currently available.
>
> Binaries are not permitted on this group, however references to
> FTP-able material and Web URL's are allowed."
>
>
> WITH:
>
> "Advertising is forbidden.
don't agree with this bit - it would, for example, have stopped news about
eGenie being annoounced on uk.t.m would the old charter would permit.
> Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
> forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which
> a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP)
> may be used where authentication is important and should be as
> short as possible.
agree with this bit
> Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
> formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
> common newsreaders comply with this, read
> <http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>."
>
agree with this bit
Nadeem
BWGames
news:rfd1-charter-uk.telecom.mobile-20030507221836$a4...@control.clues.com,
Grant Mason <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> typed:
I agree.
Robin Weston
<utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.telecom.mobile
I agree
--
To e-mail me sensibly punctuate robin matey net
Better still, reply in group.
Dr Zoidberg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
> uk.telecom.mobile
>
>
>
> *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
>
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Further procedural details are given below.
>
> Rationale uk.telecom.mobile
>
> There is very little history of on-topic advertising in
> uk.telecom.mobile that complies with the narrow definition found in
> the current charter. Given that uk.adverts.telecom.mobile fits the
> needs of those that wish to post and/or read mobile related adverts,
> a number of regular posters to uk.telecom.mobile have agreed with the
> suggestion that the charter should be changed.
>
> And whilst I'm here, I might as well take the opportunity to replace
> the current binary wording with that which is now considered
> 'standard'.
>
the changes proposed are sensible and would get my support.
--
Alex
"We are now up against live, hostile targets"
"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "
Grant Mason
news:7t0lbv4ftt141h2pl...@4ax.com
> In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 07 May 2003 23:18:36 +0100, Grant Mason
> <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote:
>
> }"Advertising is forbidden.
>
> How do you propose to enforce this change ?
By pointing out to transgressors that the charter doesn't allow advertising.
> Which ISP's will do anything about off charter postings?
Dunno.
Sunil Sood
"Grant Mason" <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote in message
news:rfd1-charter-uk.telecom.mobile-20030507221836$a4...@control.clues.com...
>
> "Advertisements are not allowed, except one posting of 3 lines + URL for new
> services/products that are significantly different from that currently
> available.
>
>
> "Advertising is forbidden.
Postings re: "new services/products that are significantly different from that
currently available" are (I would have thought) of general interest to those in
uk.t.m and not just in some adverts group.
Regards
Sunil
Dave Williams
: In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 07 May 2003 23:18:36 +0100, Grant Mason
: <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote:
: }"Advertising is forbidden.
: How do you propose to enforce this change ?
: Which ISP's will do anything about off charter postings?
You might be surprised.
http://www.uk.clara.net/support/aup.html
Paragraph 13.
Dave
Grant Mason
news:b9e3pe$2i1i$1...@news.clues.com
>
> http://www.uk.clara.net/support/aup.html
404 compliant from here.
http://www.uk.clara.net/details/aup.phtml
Grant Mason
news:b9e37i$hv4u8$1...@ID-20959.news.dfncis.de
>
> Postings re: "new services/products that are significantly different
> from that currently available" are (I would have thought) of general
> interest to those in uk.t.m and not just in some adverts group.
Yeah, but utm never gets any of those :-)
Given the nature of the advertising utm does attract - "Gosh, another
ringtone site. How novel" - I don't think the restriction is going to stop
*any* useful posts. It's not like new services will bypass the notice of utm
for the lack of an advert.
Tony Walton
While this is true, and was presumably the intent of the current wording
of the charter, the actual volume of advertising in u.t.m which meets
this narrow-appearing but in practice rather vague criterion is
practically nil. All the current wording does is to make people think
that they can be on-charter in advertising a second hand 3210 which is
"significantly different" because it has a limited edition Doncaster
Rovers cover.
That's if they're bothered about charters at all, of course, but as Tony
Gold said elsewhere in this thread, that's a good question which has
nothing to do with this RFD.
--
Tony
Dave Williams
: "Dave Williams" <da...@clues.com> wrote in message
: news:b9e3pe$2i1i$1...@news.clues.com
:>
:> http://www.uk.clara.net/support/aup.html
: 404 compliant from here.
Oddness. That was a c&p from the browser. Oh well. Whatever does work.
Dave
essdeekay
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
> changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup
> uk.telecom.mobile
Fully supported.
Seb
Matthew Haigh
specifying that links to commercial websites are acceptable in properly
delimited signatures.
A few examples from charters of other uk groups are below - these are
just the first few Google threw up.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.sport.motorsport.html
Signatures are expected to be no more than four lines of maximum length
78 viewable characters (including spaces). Compliant signatures are
exempt any restriction on advertising content.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cars.fuel.lpg.html
As with most groups, excessively long signatures are not allowed. The
normal rule for this is 4 standard-length lines (80 characters or less)
and while this will not be enforced to the letter excessively long
signatures will constitute a violation of this charter. The inclusion of
web page links in signatures is acceptable, but if these refer to a
commercial site (and are thus advertisements in all but name) they
should be readily identifiable as such.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.caravanning.html
Discrete signatures of no more than 4 lines containing commercial
advertising, links etc are allowed on the bottom of a private message
provided the message is otherwise on-topic.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.music.rock.html
Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted,
however all .sigs should be of 4 lines or fewer, and preceded by the
customary usenet separator "-- " (dash, dash, space), on a line of its
own.
Matt
--
Matthew Haigh --$matthaigh{News03}$@haigh.org--
·.¸¸.·´¯` Matt ´¯`·.¸¸.·
news:105238672...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> "Grant Mason" <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote in message
> news:rfd1-charter-uk.telecom.mobile-20030507221836$a4...@control.clues.com
> >
> > uk.telecom.mobile
>
orginal
> message - your reply will appear in news:uk.net.news.config which is where
> these matters are discussed. At least twelve people need to agree for the
> change to go through [1].
>
> And if you don't agree with the change, please feel free to post a reply
> saying so.
>
>
>
> [1] Ignoring for the moment the hoops of fast tracks, CFV, objections et
al.
>
>
I agree
--
Matt
-------------------------------------------------
The email address in the headers isn't read. Replace usenet with matt to
email me
-------------------------------------------------
Grant Mason
news:fNawf4Hr...@local.gcrsoft.com
> I agree in principle, but would like to see an additional line
> specifying that links to commercial websites are acceptable in
> properly delimited signatures.
Will do.
How about:
Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
Matthew Haigh
<ne...@mason.sh> writes
That looks OK to me, possibly replace .sig with signature?
Molly Mockford
May 2003, Grant Mason <ne...@mason.sh> wrote:
>How about:
>
>Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
>provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
>or fewer, and preceded by the customary usenet separator "-- "
>(dash, dash, space), on a line of its own.
Or possibly something like "...and, where the poster's software permits,
preceded by..." - unless the group thoroughly enjoys Outlook Express
flames, of course.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
Julian Edge
> Or possibly something like "...and, where the poster's software permits,
> preceded by..." - unless the group thoroughly enjoys Outlook Express
> flames, of course.
Why not RFD 'uk.tossers.outlook.express' ?
I'd post.
Markus G. Klötzer
This would stop the discussion, that crops up from time to time about
someone's sig without without allowing "sig-spamming" (which is
coverered by the Breitbart Index anyway)
cu
mgk
--
"Idioten sind sehr viel erfindungsreicher,
als sich die Experten überhaupt vorstellen können"
- Wolfgang Jaeth in h.d.m.
Grant Mason
>
> Or possibly something like "...and, where the poster's software
> permits, preceded by..." - unless the group thoroughly enjoys Outlook
> Express flames, of course.
AIUI, OE-QuoteFix can do pukka sig steps as well now so that *should* be a
dead issue.
Oink, oink, flap, flap.
Having said that, utm does seem to attract more than the usual complement of
top posters - that's always good for the occasional flamefest.
Dr Zoidberg
Well I have an "other" web site in my sig.
Its not related in any way to mobile phones , but gets tacked on the bottom
of every post I make (3k at the last check).
The above wording would mean that every post I make on the group , about
phones or not , would put me in violation of the charter.
stuart graham
<AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>Grant Mason wrote:
>> "Matthew Haigh" <$matthaigh{News03}$@haigh.org> wrote in message
>> news:fNawf4Hr...@local.gcrsoft.com
>>> I agree in principle, but would like to see an additional line
>>> specifying that links to commercial websites are acceptable in
>>> properly delimited signatures.
>>
>> Will do.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
>> provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
>> or fewer, and preceded by the customary usenet separator "-- "
>> (dash, dash, space), on a line of its own.
>
>Well I have an "other" web site in my sig.
>Its not related in any way to mobile phones , but gets tacked on the bottom
>of every post I make (3k at the last check).
>
>The above wording would mean that every post I make on the group , about
>phones or not , would put me in violation of the charter.
Only because your sig is too long.....
--
stuart graham
''The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"
George Bernard Shaw
Dr Zoidberg
> On Thu, 8 May 2003 23:52:02 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Grant Mason wrote:
>>> "Matthew Haigh" <$matthaigh{News03}$@haigh.org> wrote in message
>>> news:fNawf4Hr...@local.gcrsoft.com
>>>> I agree in principle, but would like to see an additional line
>>>> specifying that links to commercial websites are acceptable in
>>>> properly delimited signatures.
>>>
>>> Will do.
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
>>> provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
>>> or fewer, and preceded by the customary usenet separator "-- "
>>> (dash, dash, space), on a line of its own.
>>
>> Well I have an "other" web site in my sig.
>> Its not related in any way to mobile phones , but gets tacked on the
>> bottom of every post I make (3k at the last check).
>>
>> The above wording would mean that every post I make on the group ,
>> about phones or not , would put me in violation of the charter.
>
> Only because your sig is too long.....
No , even shrunk down to 4 lines I have a web site link which isn't on topic
for UK.T.M
There really is no point in having unenforcable rules that would be broken
on such a frequent basis.
Lt. Cmdr. Jim
> stuart graham wrote:
>>On Thu, 8 May 2003 23:52:02 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>><AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Grant Mason wrote:
>>>>"Matthew Haigh" <$matthaigh{News03}$@haigh.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:fNawf4Hr...@local.gcrsoft.com
<snip>
>>>>How about:
>>>>
>>>>Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
>>>>provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
>>>>or fewer, and preceded by the customary usenet separator "-- "
>>>>(dash, dash, space), on a line of its own.
>>>
>>>Well I have an "other" web site in my sig.
>>>Its not related in any way to mobile phones , but gets tacked on the
>>>bottom of every post I make (3k at the last check).
>>>
>>>The above wording would mean that every post I make on the group ,
>>>about phones or not , would put me in violation of the charter.
>>
>>Only because your sig is too long.....
>
> No , even shrunk down to 4 lines I have a web site link which isn't on topic
> for UK.T.M
> There really is no point in having unenforcable rules that would be broken
> on such a frequent basis.
I inerpreted /provided the message is on-topic/ as allowing the link if
the main body of the post was on topic.
--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
It's only Usenent, everyone dies.
Handy status thingy. Sometimes up to date.
http://jim.us-lot.org/usenet/index.html
stuart graham
<AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
No you miss the point. "Pointers to commercial or other web sites in
.sigs are permitted provided the *message* is on-topic." I have
highlighted the important word for you. No distinction is made between
websites of a commercial or other nature or an on or off topic nature
so long as the message they are appended to is on topic. The sig is
*not* the message.
Matthew Haigh
<Dengej...@mgk.freeuk.com> writes
>"Grant Mason" <ne...@mason.sh> wrote:
>
>> "Matthew Haigh" <$matthaigh{News03}$@haigh.org> wrote in message
>> news:fNawf4Hr...@local.gcrsoft.com
>>> I agree in principle, but would like to see an additional line
>>> specifying that links to commercial websites are acceptable in
>>> properly delimited signatures.
>>
>> Will do.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are permitted
>> provided the message is on-topic. All .sigs should be 4 lines
>> or fewer, and preceded by the customary usenet separator "-- "
>> (dash, dash, space), on a line of its own.
>
>This would stop the discussion, that crops up from time to time about
>someone's sig without without allowing "sig-spamming" (which is
>coverered by the Breitbart Index anyway)
That was the intention - if we are trying to define what is acceptable
in terms of advertising, lets get rid of another related dispute at the
same time.
Matthew Haigh
<stu...@REMOVEntlworld.com> writes
>No you miss the point. "Pointers to commercial or other web sites in
>.sigs are permitted provided the *message* is on-topic." I have
>highlighted the important word for you. No distinction is made between
>websites of a commercial or other nature or an on or off topic nature
>so long as the message they are appended to is on topic. The sig is
>*not* the message.
I agree with your interpretation, but would it be clearer to say
"Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs, whether related to
mobile telecommunications or not, are permitted provided the message to
which the signature is attached is on-topic."
Matthew Haigh
<ne...@mason.sh> writes
>"Molly Mockford" <nos...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6aBYjLAz...@clara.net
>>
>> Or possibly something like "...and, where the poster's software
>> permits, preceded by..." - unless the group thoroughly enjoys Outlook
>> Express flames, of course.
That's certainly a common sport in utm...
>
>AIUI, OE-QuoteFix can do pukka sig steps as well now so that *should* be a
>dead issue.
>
>Oink, oink, flap, flap.
>
>Having said that, utm does seem to attract more than the usual complement of
>top posters - that's always good for the occasional flamefest.
>
>
I notice that some other uk groups specify the correct quoting method
(trimming, replying underneath quoted material etc.). Would it be worth adding
this in to a formatting section, or specifically referencing the "How and why
to quote properly" section of http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html?
Dr Zoidberg
Well your wording wasn't clear enough then.
I interpreted it as referring to the sig.
essdeekay
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOOO!!!!!@Drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote
: Well your wording wasn't clear enough then.
It wasn't stuart's wording, it was Grant Mason's.
: I interpreted it as referring to the sig.
Which bit of 'Pointers to commercial or other web sites in .sigs are
permitted' didn't you understand? To me, that means all websites -
commercial or otherwise - are permitted 'provided the message is on-topic'.
I think the revised wording is fine, as-is.
Seb
Richard Lawrence
> Grant Mason wrote:
> <snip>
> > REPLACE:
> >
> > "Advertisements are not allowed, except one posting of 3 lines + URL
> > for new services/products that are significantly different from that
> > currently available.
> >
> > FTP-able material and Web URL's are allowed."
> >
> >
> > WITH:
> >
> > "Advertising is forbidden.
>
> don't agree with this bit - it would, for example, have stopped news about
> eGenie being annoounced on uk.t.m would the old charter would permit.
Oops. That would be my fault then. Having read the old and proposed
new charter it would look like my announcements about eGenie would be
classed as "off topic".
If that is the case, please let me know and I'll ensure that I don't
post such a thing again.
Regards
Richard
Grant Mason
news:b1b8a8d6.03050...@posting.google.com
> "Nadeem" <nad...@null.five-ten-sg.com> wrote in message
> news:<b9dclg$hh64g$1...@ID-97989.news.dfncis.de>...
>>
>> about
>> eGenie being annoounced on uk.t.m would the old charter would permit.
>
> Oops. That would be my fault then. Having read the old and proposed
> new charter it would look like my announcements about eGenie would be
> classed as "off topic".
>
> If that is the case, please let me know and I'll ensure that I don't
> post such a thing again.
IMO, if you post an annoucement about your not-for-profit mobile related
freeware, then it's not an advert.
Tony Walton
I had to read it twice, but that's the conclusion I came to as well.
Why does the paragraph *need* to specify "provided the message is
on-topic" since this is why there is a charter in the first place? I
suggest deleting those words altogether.
--
Tony
James Savage
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
> in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> change the charter of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup uk.telecom.mobile
I agree.
--
James
Home http://www.countb.co.uk/
Blog http://www.countb.co.uk/blog/
Thomas Lee
<da...@clues.com> writes
>Richard Ashton <{'R'}@semolina.org> wrote:
>: In uk.net.news.config on Wed, 07 May 2003 23:18:36 +0100, Grant Mason
>: <utm...@mason.sh.invalid> wrote:
>
>: }"Advertising is forbidden.
>
>: How do you propose to enforce this change ?
>
>: Which ISP's will do anything about off charter postings?
>
>You might be surprised.
>
>http://www.uk.clara.net/support/aup.html
>
>Paragraph 13.
>
>Dave
But does it take action against those who violate the charter? And what
happens if they use a clara dialup, but post via a non-clara server?
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Nadeem
> "Nadeem" <nad...@null.five-ten-sg.com> wrote in message
> news:<b9dclg$hh64g$1...@ID-97989.news.dfncis.de>...
> new charter it would look like my announcements about eGenie would be
> classed as "off topic".
>
> If that is the case, please let me know and I'll ensure that I don't
> post such a thing again.
Richard, that was my point the proposed new charter would stop you
announcing something like eGenie (great program - thanks), I don't think it
should be changed and it should be kept the same, for precisely that reason.
It might also have (potentially) been against the new proposed charter to
post some of the problems that Locust had with Orange as well, depending on
your interpretation of a no advertising clause.
Hope that clarified my objection a bit for you.
Nadeem
Dave Williams
: 13) The customer must not use the service to post articles which
: contravene the charter of the group to which the posts are made.
: I don't believe for one second that Clara would act on that. You are
: talking crap.
What you believe is entirely up to you.
Dave