A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
because he wishes to censor.

He may be doing the same in these groups too.

So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
-- 
  Bill Borland

"Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"

Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the 
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real 
world.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland  
wrote:

> In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
>  writes
> >
> >The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
> >messages to be commercial.
> >
> Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

UCE is usually spam, but might not be.  Try this:

 http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html

-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

In message <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10 
Apr 2007, Bill Borland  remarked:
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>>
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For 
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The 
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).

Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would 
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but 
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which 
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).

Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling 
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty 
meaningless today.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland 
 writes
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the 
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious, 
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE" 
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's 
all spam.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
-- 
  Bill Borland

"Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"

Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the 
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real 
world.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland  
wrote:

> In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
>  writes
> >
> >The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
> >messages to be commercial.
> >
> Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

UCE is usually spam, but might not be.  Try this:

 http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html

-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

In message <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10 
Apr 2007, Bill Borland  remarked:
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>>
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For 
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The 
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).

Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would 
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but 
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which 
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).

Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling 
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty 
meaningless today.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland 
 writes
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the 
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious, 
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE" 
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's 
all spam.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
-- 
  Bill Borland

"Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"

Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the 
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real 
world.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland  
wrote:

> In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
>  writes
> >
> >The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
> >messages to be commercial.
> >
> Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

UCE is usually spam, but might not be.  Try this:

 http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html

-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

In message <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10 
Apr 2007, Bill Borland  remarked:
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>>
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For 
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The 
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).

Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would 
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but 
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which 
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).

Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling 
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty 
meaningless today.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland 
 writes
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the 
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious, 
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE" 
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's 
all spam.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
-- 
  Bill Borland

"Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"

Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the 
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real 
world.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland  
wrote:

> In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
>  writes
> >
> >The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
> >messages to be commercial.
> >
> Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

UCE is usually spam, but might not be.  Try this:

 http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html

-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

In message <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10 
Apr 2007, Bill Borland  remarked:
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>>
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For 
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The 
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).

Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would 
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but 
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which 
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).

Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling 
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty 
meaningless today.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland 
 writes
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the 
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious, 
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE" 
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's 
all spam.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
-- 
  Bill Borland

"Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"

Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the 
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real 
world.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland  
wrote:

> In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
>  writes
> >
> >The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
> >messages to be commercial.
> >
> Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

UCE is usually spam, but might not be.  Try this:

 http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html

-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

In message <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10 
Apr 2007, Bill Borland  remarked:
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>>
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For 
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The 
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).

Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would 
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but 
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which 
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).

Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling 
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty 
meaningless today.
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <$WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland 
 writes
>>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>>messages to be commercial.
>Doesn't it?  I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?

While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the 
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious, 
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE" 
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's 
all spam.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Which direction might that be?
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

In article , me2@privacy.net 
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
> 
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
> 
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> 
> 
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to 
prevent this sort of abuse.

"Bruce"  wrote in message 
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoXbnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
>> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
> Which direction might that be?
> -- 
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)

south for you.................

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce 
 wrote:

> Alan wrote:
> > So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> > suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
> 
> Which direction might that be?

Probably south, in your case!
-- 
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Mugwump"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>

What was that?

gm wrote:
> "Mugwump"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20829924c5d5e4309896a1@news.easynews.com...
>> <Message source deleted>
> 
> What was that? 

It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)

Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
> 
Alan,

this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message 
x-posted to this many groups.

Andy

In article , 
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:

> *From:* Alan 
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
> 
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.

False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
rolling period. 
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
> them because he wishes to censor.

False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

> He may be doing the same in these groups too.

False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.

Says an alt.net user...! 

-- 
Paul Cummins 
*FREE* mobile phone  -  http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070*    -  http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life -  http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* -  http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article , 
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Alan 
>> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>> 
>> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is 
>> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
>> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being 
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day 
>rolling period. 
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2    

False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

>> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing 
>> them because he wishes to censor.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used 
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly 
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.

You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

>> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.

I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...

>> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these 
>> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>Says an alt.net user...! 

Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.

In article , Alan 
 writes
>>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>>rolling period.
>>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical". 
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within 
this definition.

The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the 
messages to be commercial.

As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide 
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.

>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.

A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because 
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find 
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.

>>Says an alt.net user...!
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards 
either.

Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of 
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water 
boiling container.

As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic 
system, aerial teddies are so last year.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather              | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)    | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937           | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article <lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
 writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of