Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Desk Rabbit" <spam-me-not@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ro6dnRjjpqExZsDbRVnyhwA@pipex.net
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
>> So the Ivor definition of newsgroup spam based on what
>> you have said in this thread, is that it is spam provided
>> it advertises something (or not), has a valid email
>> address (or not), has a web site (or not) and may at some
>> point in the distant future lead to some possibility that
>> there might just be the faint hint of a posting with some
>> sort of commercial bias related to the original posting.
>> Brilliant Ivor, just plain brilliant.[/color]
>
> Who said it was my definition..? Spam is spam is spam, whoever defines it.[/color]

From your own words in this thread:-

"I assume they are asking people to respond here, eventually a business
contact will come along. It's happened before that way."

"Not at all. However if you were to try and advertise your business
here, that would be spam."

"It isn't irrelevant. The post was spam. The lack of a valid address
merely compounds it."

"Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all
to me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide."

"Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and doesn't provide a
website where you can check out their products is somewhat suspicious to
my mind."

Your words Ivor, your words......

If I could be arsed I'd find plenty more examples.