🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5k83lq$f84@uofa.agcs.com>, Ted Krueger <kruegert@agcs.com> wrote:
>In article <5k7sfd$mj0$1@nnrp01.primenet.com>,
>James J. Lippard <lippard@primenet.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> Yes.  But when did you ask Primenet not to call you?
>
>[Charlie's discussion about asking Primenet not to give 
>out his phone number...snipped.]
>
>>You didn't answer the question that was asked.
>
>Jim,
> 
>You know that Charlie does not agree that an independent 
>contractor telemarketing firm is a Primenet employee.  

Yes, I know that, and I agree with it as well, but I was still curious to
see his answer to the question which was asked.  It appeared to me that
he had not answered it, but now he clearly has done so.

I am also still curious to know what you were talking about with respect
to Primenet and definitions of "spam"--you said something to the effect
that Primenet was attempting to foist some peculiar definition of "spam"
on its customers and using it as a justification for cancelling users'
postings.  Did you have some particular incident in mind?  Primenet has
only cancelled postings in the following categories, in approximate order
of frequency.

(1) Spam--identical or substantially similar articles separately posted to
    20 or more newsgroups.  (This is the standard definition of "spam.")
    Frequency:  Many--perhaps a few thousand total since Primenet
    started offering dialup service in June 1994.
(2) Articles that the poster requests that Primenet cancel.  (Some users
    have had problems cancelling their own posts and requested that
    Primenet do it for them.)  Frequency:  Probably fewer than 10 since
    June 1994.
(3) Articles that have illegal content, such as child pornography or
    copyrighted material.  Frequency:  child pornography, approximately
    5 postings; copyrighted material, 1 posting.

Primenet does not cancel postings merely for being off-topic, though users
may be warned about repeated off-topic posting.

I have also personally cancelled off-topic postings in phx.general after a
discussion in that newsgroup concluded that we should try retromoderation
to keep the cross-posted advertisements out of the newsgroup.  Those
postings that were cancelled were put up on a web page
(http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/phx.general/) and the posters were
notified where possible (i.e., whenever there was non-forged email address
information in the article headers).  I discontinued this for lack of time
in September 1996 (I began in July 1996).

I have also personally cancelled several (perhaps 3 at most)
postings which have been made to Usenet newsgroups forged with my
address on them, and a few more (perhaps 30) that were spammed
commercial advertisements which had one of my domains used in the
forged author's address (skeptic.com).

--
Jim Lippard    lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04