From: "Tecknomage"



Gee.... Nice to know you dictate standards for News Groups. When were
you elected to your post?


I have been on Usenet for twenty years and I have read numerous News Group
FAQs and Charters. I have read "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and
guidelines" and do my best to ab ide by FAQs, Charters and Usenet Etiquette
set in RFCs.

Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10

Which states...
Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means,
essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."

"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:

- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.

So don't attack me for telling you long established and published Usenet
standards. Heed the message, not attack it !

While I am at it...
RFCs on Usenet etiquette and standards dictate thatr A Usenet signature
start with a signature delimeter "-- " and should not exceed four lines
after the delimter. Yours exceeds that by one line.


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:33:36 -0700, "Tecknomage"
wrote in article
...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:40:24 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:08:35 -0700, "Tecknomage"
wrote in article
...

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:34:18 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:58:41 -0500, "VanguardLH"
wrote in article ...

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:07:20 -0700, "Tecknomage"
wrote in article
...

Spam, multi-posted to 5+ groups.

ReactOS is a Windows 2000 clone but he posts in a
Vista newsgroup instead of the
microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup.

Indeed - and multi-posted (instead of cross-posted) to 4 other
newsgroups where it is only peripherally relevant, and
onlycontains a teaser line and a couple of links. That equals
spam, in mybook.

Not if you bothered to use the links. My original message was a
heads-up to all Windows groups to let everyone know ReactOS
existed.


Still multi-posted instead of crossposted, still not directly
relevant to the groups (*especially* since it is still in "alpha
stage") Still spam.


My eMail client does not easily allow corssposting, which is why I
posted the way I did.


So, your client *is* capable, you are just too lazy to do it the right
way. Right, sorted.

If you are too lazy to use your current client properly, then get a new
client that makes it easier on you - especially since it seems to have
a really bad idea of how to properly quote from previous articles.


A possible MS Windows alternative "not directly relevant" to Windows
groups? Really? Especially as a heads-up to Windows users who may be
interested that ReactOS exists and want to keep an eye on development.


A half-baked clone of an old version of Windows is not relevant to
later versions of Windows. Just like it would not be relevant for me to
post about Windows 2000 in a Vista group, it is inappropriate to post
about ReactOS in a Vista group.


There ARE people who like to know about developments in Operator
Systems. I'm a retired Computer Specialist and IT Technician (30+yrs)
and keep an eye out on such things.


Then do so in the correct group. alt.comp.os.windows-2000 is likely the
only remotely related Windows group. Off the top of my head,
comp.os.misc would be another related group, there may be others. It is
up to you to find them, not me.


snip junk even further OT

If you had gone to the ReactOS link....

I don't go to spammed links.

Your loss.

Nope, no loss here - I'm completely uninterested in an OS that is thus
far failing in its attempt to mimic a more than decade old OS. I
*might* be interested in an OS that is attempting to mimic a more
modern version of Windows - but probably not if it is failing.

--
Zaphod

"Yeah. Listen, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox, my father was Zaphod Beeblebrox
the Second, my grandfather Zaphod Beeblebrox the Third..."

"What?"

"There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Now
concentrate!"