Thanks—fixed.

The original url [1] was blogspam—that is, it was a knock-off (or excerpt) of some other, more original source. In such cases HN strongly prefers the original source.

Submitters: blogspam is usually easy to recognize. Please check for that and post the original instead.

1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russi...

Calling Schneier "blogspam" means you don't read his blog.

You really really should.

Funny, I had a line that said "Schneier's original, substantive pieces are fine, of course" which I deleted as unnecessary. Perhaps I'll err the other way and write too much.

"Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case.

I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question.

None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources.

1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)

If a random blog did the same a Schneier here (just providing link to source and a except from the article), would this submission not be marked as blogspam?

Wait a minute - it wasn't Schneier who submitted the link, was it?

I'm not saying that either. Anyway, seems like it was seen as blogspam and the submission have been changed now.