Simon Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The accepted netiquette is that private email is private, mailing
>> list email is public. You don't post contents of a privately sent email
>> to a mailing list without permission.
>>
>Does everyone agree ? Where did this idea come from ? Was I wrong about hard
>copy mail too ? Did I wake up on the wrong planet ?
It's accepted as netiquette. Which, of course is not law ;-) Netiquette
also dictates that you don't send large attachments to mailing lists, but
some idiots still insist on doing it and refuse to see the problems with
it when people get upset.
As for hard copy mail, there are a couple issues:
1) Whether or not it's OK to show a hard copy letter to someone to whom
it wasn't addressed is really dependent upon the context in which it was
sent.
2) Email and hard copy mail are two different things. There is no such
thing as a "discussion/mailing list" with snail mail. So there is no
clear differentiation between "sending to the list" and "sending
privately." Email has such differentiation, and the "good netiquette"
practice is to honor the method in which you received the message:
privately or publicly.
"PrinceGaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was my belief that email posted to a list was considered open for
>sending where you like, within reason. OTOH private email is
>generally just that, Private. I agree with the earlier guy who states
>netiquette means you don't post it to a list "as is", but if you make
>it a "someone" said post, and remove all references to the sender I
>would post a private mail to a (fairly) relevant group.
Within reason, yes. But if a member of a list wrote you privately, and
you posted the message to the list even without attribution but it is
clear who wrote it, that's still bad netiquette. If you want to post
something to a list that was sent privately, the polite thing to do is to
clear it with the sender *first*. Usually if they wanted it to go to the
list, they would have sent it there.
>Alternatively if someone put a phrase like "Replying privately, but feel
>free to post publicly" like I sometimes do, then that's a clear "no probs
>with ML sending" to a relevant list.
Exactly.
"Jeffrey D. Scorsone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I for one do not agree with the so called "accepted netiquette".
Why not? It's logical, it's fair, it reduces misunderstandings, and it
puts no burden on others. Those are the goals of "netiquette," so it's
hard to argue with the protocol.
>However, that doesn't mean you should reforward anything and everything
>you get via private conversation to a public forum. But if there is
>information that is non-confidential, that could be benneficial to
>others, then use it...
Who decides what "confidential" is? It could be argued that because the
sender sent it privately, and not to the list, that it is by definition
"confidential."
>Consequently, QUOTE THEM, give credit where it's due
>and relax.
It's not a matter of relaxing or not relaxing, or even giving credit.
It's a matter of everyone trying to play by the same rules so that
misunderstandings don't occur. Most of the times when this breach of
netiquette occurs the problem isn't "giving credit where it's due" but
rather that someone sent something privately, under the assumption that
it was intended for the recipient, and the recipient then posted it to a
public list. This can be harmless, or embarrassing, or even dangerous.
You may not "agree" with the accepted protocol, but it's what most people
accept, so it's only polite to play along <grin>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
