BKCMVRDM.RVW 20041010

"Computer Viruses for Dummies", Peter Gregory, 2004, 0-7645-7418-3,
U$14.99/C$21.99/UK#9.99
%A Peter Gregory peter.gregory [at] hartgregorygroup.com
%C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8
%D 2004
%G 0-7645-7418-3
%I John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
%O U$14.99/C$21.99/UK#9.99 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448
%O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robsladesi nterne
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robslade sinte-21
%O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robsladesin 03-20
%P 274 p.
%T "Computer Viruses for Dummies"

This book isn't really about computer viruses. The introduction
contains an awkwardly worded paragraph in Gregory refuses to define
computer viruses, but makes it clear that he intends, in common with
Humpty-Dumpty, to use the term "virus" in whichever way he chooses.
Mostly he chooses to use it to mean "lots of things that can be
annoying to your computing, including malware, spam, and other
circumstances." To the non-specialist this might seem to be an
advantage. After all, who cares what you call the problem as long as
you're protected from it? Unfortunately, the different types of Bad
Things out there work in different ways. So why tell the reader to
use a firewall, and avoid getting their addresses on spam lists, when
neither technology has anything to do with protecting you against
viruses?

Part one is supposed to allow you to evaluate your virus situation.
Chapter one, which purports to give you the information necessary to
understand virus risks, contains a lot of generally irrelevant
material, such as the various versions of Windows. (It is ironic that
the most meager entry given is that for Windows XP, since XP was
actually an important increase in virus risk. The internal structure
of the operating system makes it harder to clean and protect--DCOM is
more difficult to shut off, and System Restore makes it harder to get
rid of risky utilities--and the increased wealth of hiding places
makes disinfection much more problematic.) The symptoms listed in
chapter two are not reliable indicators of the presence; or absence;
of a virus. The section that repeats much of the content of chapter
one is peculiar. The book is intended for, err ..., average to novice
computer users, so having a chapter telling you how to find out if
your computer actually has antiviral software already installed is
possibly a good thing. But chapter three spends an awful lot of time
telling you things about icons, and not as much time on how you might
determine the version or signature update status.

Part two is concerned with actually protecting yourself. Chapter four
suggests a reasonable process for installing new antiviral software
once you have it. First, however, there is some questionable advice
in regard to choosing said software. "Reputable" is not an easily
quantifiable term: the ordinary user is going to have a hard time
distinguishing between "is highly functional" and "costs a lot and has
the biggest, brightest boxes and ads." In addition, Gregory strongly
promotes the idea of bundled packages, without noting that such
applications seldom have the "best of breed" in all categories, or
that a failure in one component can often turn off the whole suite.
Again, since this book is aimed at the typical user, chapter five's
review of configuration options is not altogether useful: it does not
always point out the dangers of certain actions. Chapter six, on
scanning your computer and email, has very little helpful material.
Dealing with infections, in chapter seven, is somewhat better. The
content regarding interpretation of warning messages is worthwhile.
But the terse accounts of modifying the Registry and restoring or re-
installing files may lead readers into difficulty.

Part three deals with maintenance of protection. Chapter eight,
regarding updating of signatures, does not seem to have much value,
and nine, on patching, really only has a couple of useful pages, and
those only for Windows and Office. Firewalls and anti-spyware
programs are important, but chapter ten fails to note how much you
need to know about network traffic in order to effectively use a
firewall, and that anti-spyware scanners don't detect viruses and vice
versa. Some reasonable guidance on protecting your PDA (Personal
Digital Assistant) is given in chapter eleven. Chapter twelve
suggests making backups of your data, and has a few other points that
might make you a bit safer. (I'd propose that telling people not to
open attachments and avoid P2P/file sharing systems would result in
better safety.)

Part four is supposed to tell us more about what viruses are. Chapter
thirteen is a not-terribly-reliable history. (BRAIN was not the
first, Concept was not a polymorph [and came later, anyway], and
during the heyday of BBSes the dominant viruses were boot sector
infectors--which couldn't be spread by BBSes. Also, it is highly
ironic that Gregory seems to imply that the Norton product was the
first antivirus--since Peter Norton spent over year telling people
that viruses were a myth and computer users should not foolishly give
their money to those antivirus-product-selling scammers.) (I agree
with Gregory on the virus writers, though.) Other types of malware
and scams are briefly discussed in chapter fourteen. Chapter fifteen
has a little (and old) information on virus operations, and some other
miscellaneous stuff.

Part five is the usual "Part of Tens," this time giving us nine myths
and an actual situation (there are *way* more than ten myths), and
minimal information about ten antivirals.

This book is addressed to people who aren't interested in viruses, and
wouldn't want to read a book about viruses. (Which makes for an
interesting marketing challenge.) It is difficult to say that nobody
would ever benefit from reading this text. But it is much harder to
envisage a situation in which this circumscribed data would save the
day, and really easy to imagine situations in which the little
information in this tome could be a very dangerous thing.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 2004 BKCMVRDM.RVW 20041010

--
======================
rslade [at] vcn.bc.ca slade [at] victoria.tc.ca rslade [at] sun.soci.niu.edu
============= for back issues:
[Base URL] site http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/
or mirror http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/
CISSP refs: [Base URL]mnbksccd.htm
Security Dict.: [Base URL]secgloss.htm
Book reviews: [Base URL]mnbk.htm
Review mailing list: send mail to techbooks-subscribe [at] egroups.com
or techbooks-subscribe [at] topica.com

Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor wrote:

> BKCMVRDM.RVW 20041010
>
> "Computer Viruses for Dummies", Peter Gregory, 2004, 0-7645-7418-3,
> U$14.99/C$21.99/UK#9.99
> %A Peter Gregory peter.gregory [at] hartgregorygroup.com
> %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8
> %D 2004
> %G 0-7645-7418-3
> %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
> %O U$14.99/C$21.99/UK#9.99 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448
> %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robsladesi nterne
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robslade sinte-21
> %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764574183/robsladesin 03-20
> %P 274 p.
> %T "Computer Viruses for Dummies"
>
> This book isn't really about computer viruses. The introduction
> contains an awkwardly worded paragraph in Gregory refuses to define
> computer viruses, but makes it clear that he intends, in common with
> Humpty-Dumpty, to use the term "virus" in whichever way he chooses.
> Mostly he chooses to use it to mean "lots of things that can be
> annoying to your computing, including malware, spam, and other
> circumstances." To the non-specialist this might seem to be an
> advantage. After all, who cares what you call the problem as long as
> you're protected from it? Unfortunately, the different types of Bad
> Things out there work in different ways. So why tell the reader to
> use a firewall, and avoid getting their addresses on spam lists, when
> neither technology has anything to do with protecting you against
> viruses?
>
> Part one is supposed to allow you to evaluate your virus situation.
> Chapter one, which purports to give you the information necessary to
> understand virus risks, contains a lot of generally irrelevant
> material, such as the various versions of Windows. (It is ironic that
> the most meager entry given is that for Windows XP, since XP was
> actually an important increase in virus risk. The internal structure
> of the operating system makes it harder to clean and protect--DCOM is
> more difficult to shut off, and System Restore makes it harder to get
> rid of risky utilities--and the increased wealth of hiding places
> makes disinfection much more problematic.) The symptoms listed in
> chapter two are not reliable indicators of the presence; or absence;
> of a virus. The section that repeats much of the content of chapter
> one is peculiar. The book is intended for, err ..., average to novice
> computer users, so having a chapter telling you how to find out if
> your computer actually has antiviral software already installed is
> possibly a good thing. But chapter three spends an awful lot of time
> telling you things about icons, and not as much time on how you might
> determine the version or signature update status.
>
> Part two is concerned with actually protecting yourself. Chapter four
> suggests a reasonable process for installing new antiviral software
> once you have it. First, however, there is some questionable advice
> in regard to choosing said software. "Reputable" is not an easily
> quantifiable term: the ordinary user is going to have a hard time
> distinguishing between "is highly functional" and "costs a lot and has
> the biggest, brightest boxes and ads." In addition, Gregory strongly
> promotes the idea of bundled packages, without noting that such
> applications seldom have the "best of breed" in all categories, or
> that a failure in one component can often turn off the whole suite.
> Again, since this book is aimed at the typical user, chapter five's
> review of configuration options is not altogether useful: it does not
> always point out the dangers of certain actions. Chapter six, on
> scanning your computer and email, has very little helpful material.
> Dealing with infections, in chapter seven, is somewhat better. The
> content regarding interpretation of warning messages is worthwhile.
> But the terse accounts of modifying the Registry and restoring or re-
> installing files may lead readers into difficulty.
>
> Part three deals with maintenance of protection. Chapter eight,
> regarding updating of signatures, does not seem to have much value,
> and nine, on patching, really only has a couple of useful pages, and
> those only for Windows and Office. Firewalls and anti-spyware
> programs are important, but chapter ten fails to note how much you
> need to know about network traffic in order to effectively use a
> firewall, and that anti-spyware scanners don't detect viruses and vice
> versa. Some reasonable guidance on protecting your PDA (Personal
> Digital Assistant) is given in chapter eleven. Chapter twelve
> suggests making backups of your data, and has a few other points that
> might make you a bit safer. (I'd propose that telling people not to
> open attachments and avoid P2P/file sharing systems would result in
> better safety.)
>
> Part four is supposed to tell us more about what viruses are. Chapter
> thirteen is a not-terribly-reliable history. (BRAIN was not the
> first, Concept was not a polymorph [and came later, anyway], and
> during the heyday of BBSes the dominant viruses were boot sector
> infectors--which couldn't be spread by BBSes. Also, it is highly
> ironic that Gregory seems to imply that the Norton product was the
> first antivirus--since Peter Norton spent over year telling people
> that viruses were a myth and computer users should not foolishly give
> their money to those antivirus-product-selling scammers.) (I agree
> with Gregory on the virus writers, though.) Other types of malware
> and scams are briefly discussed in chapter fourteen. Chapter fifteen
> has a little (and old) information on virus operations, and some other
> miscellaneous stuff.
>
> Part five is the usual "Part of Tens," this time giving us nine myths
> and an actual situation (there are *way* more than ten myths), and
> minimal information about ten antivirals.
>
> This book is addressed to people who aren't interested in viruses, and
> wouldn't want to read a book about viruses. (Which makes for an
> interesting marketing challenge.) It is difficult to say that nobody
> would ever benefit from reading this text. But it is much harder to
> envisage a situation in which this circumscribed data would save the
> day, and really easy to imagine situations in which the little
> information in this tome could be a very dangerous thing.
>
> copyright Robert M. Slade, 2004 BKCMVRDM.RVW 20041010
>

SPAMMER! DIE!!!!

In article <dMHwd.46097$ka2.6508 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>
> SPAMMER! DIE!!!!

Do you have any thoughts on what should happen to morons who quote 100+ lines
just to add one stupid line?

--
--Tim Smith

Yep. These "make a buck" guys have run the Computer
Book industry out of business. The "Computers" shelf
at Walden Books is gone ... and good riddance. I must
have bought 100 or so, and I really don't remember a
single one of them that got it right. I had 10 - 15 C books
trying to learn C-programming back in the early 90s,
and by the time I did, C++ was the new rave, so I
started over with 10 - 15 more books, until OOP took
over, and then I tried to learn Microsoft OPP ( oops! )
where I could write AutoCAD in 5 minutes, but
could not add 2 + 2. I finally gave up, and started
dating girls .. marriedkidsdivorcedmarriedgrandkids ..
must have learned something, but I sure don't know how.

johns

In article <cq93kl$28s4$1 [at] news.fsr.net>, johns123xxx [at] xxxmoscow.com
says...
> I must
> have bought 100 or so, and I really don't remember a
> single one of them that got it right. I had 10 - 15 C books
> trying to learn C-programming back in the early 90s,
> and by the time I did, C++ was the new rave...

You need to read faster :)

In the old days, reading and testing and inventing were the only way to
learn. Between the compiler manuals and other peoples experiences you
could usually master a new language in a couple months.

--
--
spamfree999 [at] rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:06:56 -0800, "johns"
<johns123xxx [at] xxxmoscow.com> wrote:

>...I had 10 - 15 C books
>trying to learn C-programming back in the early 90s,
>and by the time I did, C++ was the new rave, so I
>started over with 10 - 15 more books, ...

C language = Programming language developed in 1972.
C++ language= Originally called C with classes. Developed also in the
AT&T Co.'s Bell Laboratories in the early 1980s.

>... I finally gave up, and started dating girls ..

Twenty years later?


Geo

Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <dMHwd.46097$ka2.6508 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>>
>> SPAMMER! DIE!!!!
>
> Do you have any thoughts on what should happen to morons who quote 100+
> lines just to add one stupid line?
>

First, sorry to interrupt your attention spam for so long. Second, stop
being a dork.

Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <dMHwd.46097$ka2.6508 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>>
>> SPAMMER! DIE!!!!
>
> Do you have any thoughts on what should happen to morons who quote 100+
> lines just to add one stupid line?
>


Or how about idiots that comment for nothing? You obviously have other
issues...

In article <yB8yd.69520$ka2.36170 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
> Or how about idiots that comment for nothing? You obviously have other
> issues...

You are the one who quoted 100+ lines just to add a stupid one line (and not
even appropriate--book reviews are not spam) comment, and are now taking two
separate posts to reply to that criticism.

It's amusing how you newbies to usenet think that just because you managed
to find newsreader software, you don't need to learn anything about proper
netiquette.

--
--Tim Smith

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group [at] mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:%gnzd.9833$9j5.320 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In article <yB8yd.69520$ka2.36170 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>> Or how about idiots that comment for nothing? You obviously have other
>> issues...
>
> You are the one who quoted 100+ lines just to add a stupid one line (and
> not
> even appropriate--book reviews are not spam) comment, and are now taking
> two
> separate posts to reply to that criticism.
>
> It's amusing how you newbies to usenet think that just because you managed
> to find newsreader software, you don't need to learn anything about proper
> netiquette.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

I agree completely with Tim both times.

You were a moron (Tim's words) to quote that whole book review just in order
to post 1 completely wrong line, flaming the author (Who did a very good
job). Take a quick tip and don't flame unless you know what you are talking
about.

Also, why did you take 2 irrelevant posts to reply to Tim's (admittedly
flamming, but you started it) comment. To me that takes a complete moron.

Adrian.

----------

Easy way to tell a n00b from a l33t:
A noob will try to put everyone else down, even the leets, for doing
anything.
A leet will help others regardless of what they are doing or how wrong it
is.

Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.
If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is not
needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.

Adrian Pavone wrote:

>
> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group [at] mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:%gnzd.9833$9j5.320 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> In article <yB8yd.69520$ka2.36170 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier
>> wrote:
>>> Or how about idiots that comment for nothing? You obviously have other
>>> issues...
>>
>> You are the one who quoted 100+ lines just to add a stupid one line (and
>> not
>> even appropriate--book reviews are not spam) comment, and are now taking
>> two
>> separate posts to reply to that criticism.
>>
>> It's amusing how you newbies to usenet think that just because you
>> managed to find newsreader software, you don't need to learn anything
>> about proper netiquette.
>>
>> --
>> --Tim Smith
>
> I agree completely with Tim both times.
>
> You were a moron (Tim's words) to quote that whole book review just in
> order to post 1 completely wrong line, flaming the author (Who did a very
> good job). Take a quick tip and don't flame unless you know what you are
> talking about.
>
> Also, why did you take 2 irrelevant posts to reply to Tim's (admittedly
> flamming, but you started it) comment. To me that takes a complete moron.
>
> Adrian.
>
> ----------
>
> Easy way to tell a n00b from a l33t:
> A noob will try to put everyone else down, even the leets, for doing
> anything.
> A leet will help others regardless of what they are doing or how wrong it
> is.

Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.
> If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is not
> needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.
>
[SNIP]
Not only a clueless luser, but a top-posting clueless luser...

Go look in a Usenet archive, Rob has been posting these reviews for
quiet a while now, probably longer than you've had access to a computer.

In fact, I went off and had a google, and he's been posting reviews
using the sprint.ca address since mid-1999, and the earliest book review
I can find by a "Rob Slade" is dated Mar 25 1997.

And, like many others, I find them useful.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

Gary R. Schmidt wrote:

> Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
>> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news
>> group. If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is
>> not needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.
>>
> [SNIP]
> Not only a clueless luser, but a top-posting clueless luser...

You sound more and more like an jackass...and a bottom feeding on at that...

> Go look in a Usenet archive, Rob has been posting these reviews for
> quiet a while now, probably longer than you've had access to a computer.
>
> In fact, I went off and had a google, and he's been posting reviews
> using the sprint.ca address since mid-1999, and the earliest book review
> I can find by a "Rob Slade" is dated Mar 25 1997.


> And, like many others, I find them useful.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary B-)

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt [at] acm.org> writes:
>Michael J. Pelletier wrote:
[bobbit]

>Not only a clueless luser, but a top-posting clueless luser...

.... who doesn't even know that his articles have a b0rken header.
But that's fine with me - his articles never made it to the spool of
my news server.

>In fact, I went off and had a google, and he's been posting reviews
>using the sprint.ca address since mid-1999, and the earliest book review
>I can find by a "Rob Slade" is dated Mar 25 1997.

You may want to read
From: roberts[]mukluk.hq.decus.ca (Rob Slade, the doting grandpa of Ryan Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.books.technical,biz.books.technical,misc.books.technical
Subject: Book review index
Date: 3 Aug 1995 14:31:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 1541
Message-ID: <00994533.768051A0.6441 [at] mukluk.hq.decus.ca>
which lists some 600 reviews. And I didn't need no Google for that.

>And, like many others, I find them useful.

Of course.
--
The first entry of Sin into the mind occurs when, out of cowardice or
conformity or vanity, the Real is replaced by a comforting lie.
-- Integritas, Consonantia, Claritas

Adrian Pavone wrote:

>
> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group [at] mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:%gnzd.9833$9j5.320 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> In article <yB8yd.69520$ka2.36170 [at] fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier
>> wrote:
>>> Or how about idiots that comment for nothing? You obviously have other
>>> issues...
>>
>> You are the one who quoted 100+ lines just to add a stupid one line (and
>> not
>> even appropriate--book reviews are not spam) comment, and are now taking
>> two
>> separate posts to reply to that criticism.
>>
>> It's amusing how you newbies to usenet think that just because you
>> managed to find newsreader software, you don't need to learn anything
>> about proper netiquette.

I am amazed at what an ass you are...

>>
>> --
>> --Tim Smith
>
> I agree completely with Tim both times.
>
> You were a moron (Tim's words) to quote that whole book review just in
> order to post 1 completely wrong line, flaming the author (Who did a very
> good job). Take a quick tip and don't flame unless you know what you are
> talking about.
>
> Also, why did you take 2 irrelevant posts to reply to Tim's (admittedly
> flamming, but you started it) comment. To me that takes a complete moron.
>
> Adrian.
>
> ----------
>
> Easy way to tell a n00b from a l33t:
> A noob will try to put everyone else down, even the leets, for doing
> anything.
> A leet will help others regardless of what they are doing or how wrong it
> is.

Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:
> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.

Define "this".

> If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is not
> needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.

Define "here".

And the word you are looking for is "spam", not "SPAM" (Yes, the
(non-)capitalization makes a big difference.). And no, it isn't "spam"
either. A single unique posting can never be spam. It can be *unwanted*,
*off-topic*, etc., but it isn't / can't_be "spam".

"Frank Slootweg" <this [at] ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:41e94b9b$0$78203$1b2cd167 [at] news.wanadoo.nl...
> And the word you are looking for is "spam", not "SPAM" (Yes, the
> (non-)capitalization makes a big difference.). And no, it isn't "spam"
> either. A single unique posting can never be spam. It can be *unwanted*,
> *off-topic*, etc., but it isn't / can't_be "spam".

Lol, I agree that it isn't spam, but you do know that Michael would just
come back with the fact that there are a number of reviews here (all on
topic though).

Thanks for correcting him on the SPAM postings ;). Didn't even occur to me
to.

Adrian

Adrian Pavone <a.pavone [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> "Frank Slootweg" <this [at] ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:41e94b9b$0$78203$1b2cd167 [at] news.wanadoo.nl...
> > And the word you are looking for is "spam", not "SPAM" (Yes, the
> > (non-)capitalization makes a big difference.). And no, it isn't "spam"
> > either. A single unique posting can never be spam. It can be *unwanted*,
> > *off-topic*, etc., but it isn't / can't_be "spam".
>
> Lol, I agree that it isn't spam, but you do know that Michael would just
> come back with the fact that there are a number of reviews here (all on
> topic though).

Please note my/the "unique" qualifier! It is irrelevant if there are
"a number", for any value of "a number". If they are unique (in
content), i.e. not "substantively identical", and not crossposted/
multiposted to too many [1] groups (re: the Breidbart Index (BI)), then
they are not "spam".

Many people think that "spam" means unwanted/off-topic/etc., but it
doesn't. For what it *does* mean, see the below mentioned "FAQ: Current
Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines".

So Michael J. Pelletier should explain what *he* means by his
(mis)qualification "spam"/"SPAM" and then we can see if it makes any
sense.

> Thanks for correcting him on the SPAM postings ;). Didn't even occur to me
> to.
>
> Adrian

[1]
For a crossposted article to be spam, it would have to be crossposted to
at least 400 (four hundred) groups.
For a multiposted article to be spam, it would have to be multiposted to
at least 20 (twenty) groups.
[See "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines"
<http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html>.]

In comp.security.misc Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:

> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.

Personally, I really like the book reviews. From the comments here,
it sounds like others do to. In fact, you're the *only* person that
seems to mind. If it bothers you that much, it sounds like your
issue, not an issue for the newsgroup -- learn to use a killfile.

> If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is not
> needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.

Ever see Rob try to sell anything? Didn't think so....

--

That's News To Me!
newstome [at] comcast.net

newstome [at] comcast.net wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:
[deleted]
> > If someone wants to do this on their web site find. However, it is not
> > needed here........if it looks, smells like SPAM it probably is.
>
> Ever see Rob try to sell anything? Didn't think so....

Indeed Rob is not trying to sell anything, but note that "spam" (not
"SPAM") has nothing to do with the content of a posting. That most spam
is commercial, doesn't mean that all spam is commercial. I.e. a
non-commercial posting is spam if it exceeds the BI (Breidbart Index)
for ECP/EMP (Excessive Cross-Posting / Excessive Multi-Posting). For
details see the FAQ mentioned in my other response.

"Frank Slootweg" <this [at] ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:41e95e06$0$46605$cd19a363 [at] news.wanadoo.nl...
> Adrian Pavone <a.pavone [at] optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Lol, I agree that it isn't spam, but you do know that Michael would just
>> come back with the fact that there are a number of reviews here (all on
>> topic though).
>
> Please note my/the "unique" qualifier! It is irrelevant if there are
> "a number", for any value of "a number". If they are unique (in
> content), i.e. not "substantively identical", and not crossposted/
> multiposted to too many [1] groups (re: the Breidbart Index (BI)), then
> they are not "spam".
>
> Many people think that "spam" means unwanted/off-topic/etc., but it
> doesn't. For what it *does* mean, see the below mentioned "FAQ: Current
> Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines".
>
> So Michael J. Pelletier should explain what *he* means by his
> (mis)qualification "spam"/"SPAM" and then we can see if it makes any
> sense.
>
>> Thanks for correcting him on the SPAM postings ;). Didn't even occur to
>> me
>> to.
>>
>> Adrian
>
> [1]
> For a crossposted article to be spam, it would have to be crossposted to
> at least 400 (four hundred) groups.
> For a multiposted article to be spam, it would have to be multiposted to
> at least 20 (twenty) groups.
> [See "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines"
> <http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html>.]

Ahh, so you already had your response planned. Good job.

Adrian

newstome [at] comcast.net wrote:
> In comp.security.misc Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.
>
> Personally, I really like the book reviews.

Personally, I like race car pictures, Project Gutenberg books and source
code listings for large assembly-language programs. Let's all post some
of those here while we're at it. Hell, let's post lots of every single
thing everyone who's ever looked at the newsgroup happens to like.
And let's all cross-post all our content to every newsgroup; if it's
okay in one, it's okay in all, by your reasoning (or lack thereof).

> Ever see Rob try to sell anything? Didn't think so....

Ever get unsolicited religious e-mail encouraging you to repent, for
the kingdom of God is near? Was it trying to sell you anything?
(Careful; if you say it tried to sell you on their religion, I'll say
Rob's book reviews try to sell you on his book tastes.) So I bet you
still thought it was spam.

Probably 99% of the billions of book reviews Slade has posted over many
years were only topical in alt.musings.prolific.off-topic.

--
The state religion of the USA is atheism, as established by the courts.

In comp.security.misc clifto <clifto [at] clifto.com> wrote:
> newstome [at] comcast.net wrote:
>> In comp.security.misc Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:
>>> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.
>>
>> Personally, I really like the book reviews.
>
> Personally, I like race car pictures, Project Gutenberg books and source
> code listings for large assembly-language programs. Let's all post some
> of those here while we're at it. Hell, let's post lots of every single
> thing everyone who's ever looked at the newsgroup happens to like.
> And let's all cross-post all our content to every newsgroup; if it's
> okay in one, it's okay in all, by your reasoning (or lack thereof).

OK, I left of one word. Do you like this better: "Personally, I
really like the book reviews *HERE*." I find them to be relevant and
on-topic for the newsgroup (I'm reading this in comp.security.misc).

>> Ever see Rob try to sell anything? Didn't think so....
>
> Ever get unsolicited religious e-mail encouraging you to repent, for
> the kingdom of God is near? Was it trying to sell you anything?
> (Careful; if you say it tried to sell you on their religion, I'll say
> Rob's book reviews try to sell you on his book tastes.) So I bet you
> still thought it was spam.

By ANY definition of spam, what Rob is posting is not spam.

> Probably 99% of the billions of book reviews Slade has posted over many
> years were only topical in alt.musings.prolific.off-topic.

Wrong - I find them extremely on-topic.

--

That's News To Me!
newstome [at] comcast.net

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:38:36 -0600, newstome [at] comcast.net wrote:

>In comp.security.misc clifto <clifto [at] clifto.com> wrote:
>> newstome [at] comcast.net wrote:
>>> In comp.security.misc Michael J. Pelletier <mjpelletier [at] mjpelletier.com> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I do not think book reviews should be posted to this news group.
>>>
>>> Personally, I really like the book reviews.
>>
>> Personally, I like race car pictures, Project Gutenberg books and source
>> code listings for large assembly-language programs. Let's all post some
>> of those here while we're at it. Hell, let's post lots of every single
>> thing everyone who's ever looked at the newsgroup happens to like.
>> And let's all cross-post all our content to every newsgroup; if it's
>> okay in one, it's okay in all, by your reasoning (or lack thereof).
>
>OK, I left of one word. Do you like this better: "Personally, I
>really like the book reviews *HERE*." I find them to be relevant and
>on-topic for the newsgroup (I'm reading this in comp.security.misc).

I like them HERE as well on alt.computer.security.

>>> Ever see Rob try to sell anything? Didn't think so....
>>
>> Ever get unsolicited religious e-mail encouraging you to repent, for
>> the kingdom of God is near? Was it trying to sell you anything?
>> (Careful; if you say it tried to sell you on their religion, I'll say
>> Rob's book reviews try to sell you on his book tastes.) So I bet you
>> still thought it was spam.
>
>By ANY definition of spam, what Rob is posting is not spam.

Lol, he will never admit that, but lets see if we get close at some
time.

>> Probably 99% of the billions of book reviews Slade has posted over many
>> years were only topical in alt.musings.prolific.off-topic.
>
>Wrong - I find them extremely on-topic.

As do 99% of the other readers on the newsgroups he posted to :).