From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Mailing list etiquette/responsibilities, was Re: McElwaine's 
    postings 
    <1992Nov16.144854.9296@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Nov17.034036.17107@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:50:44 GMT

entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu wrote:
>I hear your excellent points clearly.  Robert McElwaine is a bother/
>nuisance.  In response to my email of support to him, he sent me
>an ephamplet.  But is he any more than that?  Is he a bigger bother
>than a groan and a quick stab at the 'n' key?  (And surely he is
>not alone on the net in engendering that reaction.)  

>What would happen if he were ignored rather than fussed over?


A few quick points about email and mailing lists:

	- (the obvious, but oft-forgotten point)  Many sites still pay
	  for their feeds.  I have several subscribers whose sole mail
	  feed comes through a long-distance phone line.  Those people
	  are paying enough for the email they want; why should they be
	  forced to pay for material they don't want to see?

	- Most mailing lists are dedicated to a particular topic; very
	  few lists are true 'unlimited expression' fora.  I can think
	  of several lists which approach 'unlimited' status, but I would
	  think that subscribers of those lists know what to expect.

	- Since most lists are dedicated to a particular topic, I believe
	  that the moderator/maintainer of the list has an obligation to
	  keep the discussion "on course".  Actions under this umbrella
	  might include a gentle nudge ("This really doesn't belong here"),
	  removal of messages (moderated lists do this all the time), or
	  even removal of users from the list.

	- Mailing lists are a distribution-driven mechanism, not a receipt-
	  driven mechanism; hence, anyone may send material to a mailing list.
	  (There are exceptions; some list software will only allow submis-
	  sions by subscribers.)  Given this openness, some actions are out-
	  side the purview of the maintainer/moderator.  In those cases, it
	  is (IMHO) proper for the list maintainer to request assistance from
	  sysadmins to correct/eliminate problems.

	- Most mailers do not support the notion of a "killfile".  Therefore,
	  most mail readers have to wade through all of it....

To answer your question directly, here are the results of "just ignoring"
problems such as McElwaine's postings:

	- If the list is moderated, the moderator still has to wade 
	  through (or at least examine) each submission.  If the list
	  is unmoderated, EVERYONE will have to wade through it.  That 
	  adds up to quite a bit of time.
	
	- Some machines will still burn up CPU/network time transmitting
	  the stuff.  I believe that some of our European neighbors still
	  pay for network traffic on a per-packet basis; I don't think they
	  want to pay for this stuff on an unrelated mailing list.

	  (You may think that this is negligible, but I think differently.
	   My list has subscribers in Korea and Singapore; the quality of
	   the network links to those countries often requires three or
	   four attempts to deliver a single message.  Multiply that by
	   X number of unrelated messages, and that represents a CHUNK
	   of CPU time).

	- Some sites still get their email feeds over phone lines.  The
	  cost issue is non-negligible; they're paying real money (as
	  opposed to network sites that burn "funny money" with NNTP). 

	- Some mailing lists are automatically archived; that implies that
	  sites will burn up resources in long-term storage of this unrelated 
	  crud.

	- Mailing lists with significant amounts of unrelated crud tend to
	  lose subscribers; as a result, the "knowledge base" of the list 
	  deteriorates.  This is especially sad in a technical list.

You may think that each of these is "a minor problem", and I might even
agree with you; when taken together, however, their collective impact on
a list can be devastating.

>Back to my first point: if I wanted to deprive a person of a freedom,
>the first thing I would try is to tell him it was a privilege, not
>a right.

The "right of free speech" is NOT the "right to use someone else's soapbox".
If this fellow would like to start his own mailing list (or moderated news-
group, for that matter), more power to him; however, the assertion that any
given forum is automatically a suitable place for free expression is neither
proper nor defensible (in my opinion).  The counterargument to such an asser-
tion is found in the "limited public forum" doctrine endorsed by the US 
Supreme Court.

--Wes
-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3422 alt.dreams:4013