Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(April 1998)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: New List
From: "Webbers Communications" <gkfoote @ webbers . com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:54:51 -0400
To: Darren Wyn Rees <merlin @ netlink . co . uk>, list-managers @ greatcircle . com, owner-NEW-LIST @ listserv . nodak . edu
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gkfoote @ mailhost . ncia . net>
In-reply-to: <353a621e . 7118199 @ post . demon . co . uk>
References: <199804041845 . NAA27595 @ moose . ncia . net>

Darren Wyn Rees <merlin @
 netlink .
 co .
 uk> wrote:

> I make the assumption here that gkfoote @
 webbers .
 com is the same
> gkfoote @
 webbers .
 com that is responsible for 

Webbers Communications owns and maintains and has
since The List Exchange's inception last year.  

> I also make the assumption that gkfoote @
 webbers .
 com is the same
> gkfoote @
 webbers .
 com that mails me advertisements (spam,
> depending on one's point of view) every time I post to Marty
> Hoag's New-List List?

You assume correctly...  except as regards your implications of
our disseminating spam and advertisements.  Let me say clearly
right up front:

*We do not send spam*.  We do have an autoresponder set up to
send those who post their list info to Marty Hoag's NEW-LIST a
short text file on how to add their list to The List Exchange
online database.  Clearly this is not in dispute.

So, what is in dispute here?  Is our practice of sending precisely
targeted autoresponses by e-mail considered spamming?  Well, let's
address this question.   Our purpose in targeting those who post
to the aforementioned NEW-LIST with an informative e-mail about
listex is to *maintain our internet integrity* while offering
those wishing to promote their publications the opportunity to do
so in an advertising-free environment like The List Exchange.  

How does inviting list owners to participate rather than simply
adding them to our database as they appear in NEW-LIST maintain
our integrity?  Because of the great debate over copyright issues
online.  Because we fear being sued for copyright infringement if
we simply take the info from NEW-LIST and post it to the listex
site.  Not necessarily sued by NEW-LIST - indeed, Marty Hoag and I
have exchanged e-mail in the recent past over the issue we discuss
here and he has declined to disagree with my point of view - but
perhaps sued by the list owners themselves.  After all, their
posts to Marty's list are their own copyrighted articles.  Who are
we to argue with copyright laws by copying and presenting 
information owned by someone else?

So, are we spamming?  In spirit, in intent and in reality...  no. 
Yet, there is a kernel of truth at the center of Darren Wyn Rees'
post.  Its best stated by the following excerpt;

> Can't you figure a way to stop sending auto-replies to everyone
> who posts to the New List List?   (It's starting to peeve me
> after the twentieth canned ad.

Darren, we have temporarily disabled the autoresponder in
question, because of the fact that it repeats its message to those
who post to Marty's list more than once...  not as a reaction to
the spam implication you raised.  It is indeed a waste of
bandwidth to repeat this autoresponse multiple posters to

So, until we can configure things so that repeat posters to
NEW-LIST don't get multiple copies of our autoresponder text I
remain, silently (at least as regards NEW-LIST output),

Gary K. Foote,

Webbers Communications

  • Re: New List
    From: "Webbers Communications" <gkfoote @ webbers . com>
  • Re: New List
    From: Darren Wyn Rees <merlin @ netlink . co . uk>
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: HTML-enabled mailing lists
From: "Erich L. Markert" <erich @ orator . usma . edu>
Next: Re: HTML-enabled mailing lists
From: MowMow Kitty <kitty @ squonk . net>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: New List
From: Darren Wyn Rees <merlin @ netlink . co . uk>
Next: Re: Mailing list spammer spams List-Managers mailing list!
From: woods @ ucar . edu (Greg Woods)

Search Internet Search