From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Public posting of private e-mail.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 20:18:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na

Thus spake sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley): 
 
>I agree that one should be able to stop offending e-mail.  However, before
>one posts private e-mail, there is another step that can be taken, namely
>mailing to the offender's sysadmin.  From (second hand) personal experience,
>this is often effective.  If this approach is not effective, then I truly
>doubt that posting the offender's e-mail will have any positive effect,
>but would agree that the recipient would be justified in doing so at that
>time.  The main point is, talking to a sysadmin is likely to be far more
>effective than posting e-mail.  And a very tiny percentage of posted e-mail
>seems to be of the harassment category.  Almost all seems to be of the
>"look what a jerk this guy is, see what he e-mailed me" class, and that is
>very poor netiquette, IMO.

	Sorry, but I have to disagree for a number of reasons:

	1. MANY sysadmins will not or CANNOT do anything about it. Some
	   examples would include the sysadmins at many public access
	   sites (remember b-cpu), including freenet sites, commercial
	   bbs and Internet services, services such as CIS and GEnie which
	   permit posting via E-Mail, uucp (or slip) connected sites, etc.
	   Perhaps YOU will react to such information - MANY will not or
	   cannot (try cutting off a corporate executive's access at your
	   commercial site and watch how fast a new sysadmin is hired!).
	   At one time most sites were educational or research oriented
	   and such a solution was effective. It is no longer a viable
	   solution.

	2. Many users do not wish to become known as individuals who DO
	   "run to the sysadmin" over personal problems - as they are
	   often accused of being after such an action.  In MANY case the
	   resultant flame war is FAR more vicious than it would otherwise
	   have been - and it is 100% public!

	3. Many users are participating in discussions in newsgroups that
	   they would perfer not to be identified with publically. For
	   example users on a.s.b or soc.motss (or similar groups) may not
	   be comfortable identifying themselves as participants to a
	   sysadmin at some sites. Worse, such participants often use an
	   anonymous posting service which will forward responses to them. 
	   In order to respond to the sysadmin they would have to identify
	   themselves and lose that anonyminity!

	4. Many users (myself included) believe that public discussion 
	   belongs in the public arena. While those of us who feel that 
	   way do not object to intelligent e-mail responses, positive
	   OR negative (I've received BOTH in response to my first post
	   in this thread), we DO object to obnoxious or repetitive mail.
	   It would be VERY inappropriate to post such responses w/o
	   first informing the sendor of the intention to do so if they are
	   repeated - ONCE. But if the sender persists, there is no reason
	   that the matter should NOT be taken to the public arena. 

	The netiquitte rule concerning  email privacy in such circumstances
was relevant when it came about - at that time there were far less users and
the response of sysadmins would have nearly always been supportive. Today
with the enormous influx of new users, the growth off public accesss sites,
commercial services, and gateways to other services the assumptions the
original netiquitte was based upon have changed - and perhaps it's time for
the rules of netiquitte to change with them.

	Respect of others is paramount in networking. But there is no reason
that ANYONE should have to put up with intrusive and unsolicited invasions
of their privacy in order to protect the privacy of the intruder!

	I firmly believe that NO ONE has the right to post private email
without first warning the sender of the intention to do so, preferably
publically so there is no question as to the warning having been provided
(i.e., a PROMINENT statement in a message that:

	*Email responses will be publically posted at my discretion*

or similar phrasing). Once such a message has been clearly stated, however,
I fail to see any breach of netiquitte in following through on the
statement. The individual who sends email in response to such a statement
does so with the knowledge that such mail is subject to public posting and
if that person does not accept that stipulation, they need only refrain from
sending the email in the first place! How does THAT violate their privacy?


-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)