Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

Spam: Semantic Definition

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:33 am

u mean like this quote with i stole from nickless (see above


Spam: Synchronised Personnallized Automatically-generated Message


i thought it means this
Spam; Special post at moment

but i know that some don't like spam in here so;
Spam, Spam and Spam

like in my old sig (i changed mine )

i do it ) way, coz if i put it toghter i got

Looking at the Spam-card right now
What shall i order today


_________________
Spamius Threadius

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:49 am

Once again you lost me completely DB.

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:47 am

Dragon Breath please don't do that again, it's not funny as you think it is. Besides it messes up the thread with nonsensical ramblings which really just makes me want to just *click* the thread to death.

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:03 pm

I'm with you Mustang! What is that guy smokin'? . Unfortunately, I do not think that the commercial benefits of spam are available anywhere, presumably because it may encourage more spammers. I can however, supply you with this simple, logical statement; If spam weren't profitable, it would be far less prevalent. Consider also the fact that if only one person sends money, then the spammer makes a profit. Not including ISP fees of course.

Opinion: I say that all the spammers should be lined up, and forced to read their emails, one at a time, over and over. That will teach them a lesson!

<Racial slur>Well, that or just shoot them; that's the American way! </Racial slur>.

Esquilax

============================================================
The above post is true, and by true I mean "false". It's comprised of lies, but they are entertaining lies and in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is "no".

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:05 pm

As for you Nickless, I'm working on it; that's why this post is seperate from the one above . Actually, I'm just feeling lazy. Sorry.


Esquilax

============================================================
The above post is true, and by true I mean "false". It's comprised of lies, but they are entertaining lies and in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is "no".

Post Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:31 pm

I have also come to recognize spam as when someone posts 2 or more times in a row MOst other fourms I've visted seem to think this and with and edit feature thier right.

If life is unfair how come I haven't won yet?

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:00 am

@Mustang

Speaking in terms of Mail Spam. Does anyone know or heard of any statistics as to how effective Spam mail is as an advertising medium? I've always wondered about that.


Typically for direct mailings 1.5% of receivers will respond. It may not be very high percentage wise, but the cost is so low in comparison to other marketing mediums that it is easily justified for most businesses.

Also, hasn't this topic served its purpose by now? Can I hear a click?

@Esq

I'm with you Mustang! What is that guy smokin'?

Wasn't it you who popped up on this forum in the beginning with some mindless drivel to which I was able to use two emotes I had never used before? &

BTW, about your stalking thread ... I'll deal with you yet.

Sir Spectre

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:43 am

Hehe, here we go...
This is a rough copy and paste job so some things might be messed up. There's some funny stuff at the end. Not alot, but some.


spam Pronunciation Key (spm)
n.
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

tr.v. spammed, spam·ming, spams
To send unsolicited e-mail to.
To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.

Spam

A trademark used for a canned meat product consisting primarily of chopped pork pressed into a loaf.

spam

n : (trademark) a tinned luncheon meat made largely from pork [syn: Spam

spam

1. <messaging> (From Hormel's Spiced Ham, via the Monty Python
"Spam" song) To post irrelevant or inappropriate messages to
one or more Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, or other
messaging system in deliberate or accidental violation of
netiquette.

It is possible to spam a newsgroup with one well- (or ill-)
planned message, e.g. asking "What do you think of abortion?"
on soc.women. This can be done by cross-posting, e.g. any
message which is crossposted to alt.rush-limbaugh and
alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both
groups. (Compare troll and flame bait).

Posting a message to a significant proportion of all
newsgroups is a sure way to spam Usenet and become an object
of almost universal hatred. Canter and Siegel spammed the net
with their Green card post.

If you see an article which you think is a deliberate spam, DO
NOT post a follow-up - doing so will only contribute to the
general annoyance. Send a polite message to the poster by
private e-mail and CC it to "postmaster" at the same address.
Bear in mind that the posting's origin might have been forged
or the apparent sender's account might have been used by
someone else without his permission.

The word was coined as the winning entry in a 1937 competition
to choose a name for Hormel Foods Corporation's "spiced meat"
(now officially known as "SPAM luncheon meat". Correspondant
Bob White claims the modern use of the term predates Monty
Python by at least ten years. He cites an editor for the
Dallas Times Herald describing Public Relations as "throwing a
can of spam into an electric fan just to see if any of it
would stick to the unwary passersby."

See also netiquette.

2. (A narrowing of sense 1, above) To indiscriminately send
large amounts of unsolicited e-mail meant to promote a
product or service. Spam in this sense is sort of like the
electronic equivalent of junk mail sent to "Occupant".

In the 1990s, with the rise in commercial awareness of the
net, there are actually scumbags who offer spamming as a
"service" to companies wishing to advertise on the net. They
do this by mailing to collections of e-mail addresses,
Usenet news, or mailing lists. Such practises have caused
outrage and aggressive reaction by many net users against the
individuals concerned.

3. (Apparently a generalisation of sense 2, above) To abuse
any network service or tool by for promotional purposes.

"AltaVista is an index, not a promotional tool. Attempts to
fill it with promotional material lower the value of the index
for everyone. [... We will disallow URL submissions from
those who spam the index. In extreme cases, we will exclude
all their pages from the index." -- Altavista.

4. <jargon, programming> To crash a program by overrunning a
fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data.

See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.

5. <chat, games> (A narrowing of sense 1, above) To flood any
chat forum or Internet game with purposefully annoying
text or macros. Compare Scrolling.

spam

vt.,vi.,n. [from "Monty Python's Flying Circus" 1. To
crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively
large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw,
smash the stack. 2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with
irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with
as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking "What
do you think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with
cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;
the latter more specific term has become more common. 3. To send many
identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number
of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically called `ECP',
Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly
everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello. 4. To bombard
a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This is more
specifically called `EMP', Excessive Multi-Posting. 5. To
mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages,
particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the
mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases
without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms include UCE,
UBE. 6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance,
someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to
find 200 lines of text might say "Oh no, spam".

The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the
Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3 4
and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse of
the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of the
originator's email account or network connection. In these senses
the term `spam' has gone mainstream, though without its original
sense or folkloric freight - there is apparently a widespread myth
among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when you dump cans of
Spam into a revolving fan.


Edited by - [Zn-Viper on 17-12-2003 01:45:02

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:22 am

Mmm, interesting read . Some of it MAY have a practical use, however I think that he best option would be for governments to make some laws to stop this sort of thing. There have been a few steps in the right direction, but I don't see why it is so difficult to establish legal definitions of spam and penalties for spammers.

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:46 am

Are you implying something? . In light of the information that I have read in this topic, "spam" on the TLR boards would seem to be posts that are; a) irrelevant, or b) are posted for no other reason than to increase the number of posts. Mmm, I'd better be careful .

Esquilax

============================================================
The above post is true, and by true I mean "false". It's comprised of lies, but they are entertaining lies and in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is "no".

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:48 pm

i readed today that around 56% off all sended e-mail is spam

_________________
Spamius Threadius

Post Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:10 pm

Well, under Esquilax's definition...I think that was spam.
And I guess this is spam too...
Everything's spam nowadays...
Well...I'll just stick with my definition:

there is apparently a widespread myth
among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when you dump cans of
Spam into a revolving fan.

Return to Off Topic