Subject: Re: Policy on Press Release postings
Edward C. Zimmermann (edz@bsn.com)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:46:54 +0200 (MET DST)
From: edz@bsn.com (Edward C. Zimmermann) Message-Id: <199810221746.TAA27390@gils.bsn.com> Subject: Re: Policy on Press Release postings To: gils@cni.org Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:46:54 +0200 (MET DST) In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.909063991.patrice@patrice.rtknet.org> from "patricem@ombwatch.org" at Oct 22, 98 09:45:07 am
Patrice McDermott <patricem@ombwatch.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov> wrote:
> >
> > As moderator of this list, my policy is to approve most any
> > non-spam material that may be of interest to the approximately
> > 500 subscribers. For Press Releases, I do ask that GILS be at
> > least referenced in the text.
> >
> > Do you think this policy is too restrictive, too loose, or
> > about right?
>
> Eliot,
>
> I might amend it -- to be a little looser -- if the poster
> gives explanatory material at the beginning of the post as to
> the relevance for this list.
I'd go the other way. NO PRESS RELEASES. Its little more than SPAM.
I see NO problem if a company announces or mentions that they have
done something or have a product (especially in responce to a question
about available products) and can post a URL to a press release BUT
even that is, for me, walking the border once it starts to smell like
crass advertising (which the particular "example" was). I don't buy the
"relevance" clause since it can be claimed by nearly any SPAM author.
Intention? The question to ask is: What is the intent of the message?
I don't think we should drop our standards but raise them...
-- ______________________ <A HREF="whois://rs.internic.net/ecz">Edward C. Zimmermann</A> <A HREF="http://www.bsn.com/">Basis Systeme netzwerk/Munich</A> <A HREF="mailto:edz@bsn.com">edz@bsn.com</A>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:55:44 EST