The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette

• Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisment" to any "equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcibe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." The law allows individuals to sue the sender of such illegal "junk mail" for $500 per copy. Most states will permit such actions to be filed in Small Claims Court. This activity is termed "spamming" on the Internet

• Never give your userID or password to another person. System administrators that need to access your account for maintenance or to correct problems will have full priviledges to your account.

• Never assume your email messages are private nor that they can be read by only yourself or the recipient. Never send something that you would mind seeing on the evening news.

• Keep paragraphs and messages short and to the point.

• When quoting another person, edit out whatever isn't directly applicable to your reply. Don't let your mailing or Usenet software automatically quote the entire body of messages you are replying to when it's not necessary. Take the time to edit any quotations down to the minimum necessary to provide context for your reply. Nobody likes reading a long message in quotes for the third or fourth time, only to be followed by a one line response: "Yeah, me too."

• Focus on one subject per message and always include a pertinent subject title for the message, that way the user can locate the message quickly.

• Don't use the academic networks for commercial or proprietary work.

• Include your signature at the bottom of Email messages when communicating with people who may not know you personally or broadcasting to a dynamic group of subscribers.

  Your signature footer should include your name, position, affiliation and Internet and/or BITNET addresses and should not exceed more than 4 lines. Optional information could include your address and phone number.

• Capitalize words only to highlight an important point or to distinguish a title or heading. Capitalizing whole words that are not titles is generally termed as SHOUTING!

• *Asterisks* surrounding a word can be used to make a stronger point.

• Use the underscore symbol before and after the title of a book, i.e. _The Wizard of Oz_

• Limit line length to aproximately 65-70 characters and avoid control characters.

• Never send chain letters through the Internet. Sending them can cause the loss of your Internet Access.

• Because of the International nature of the Internet and the fact that most of the world uses the following format for listing dates, i.e. MM DD YY, please be considerate and avoid misinterpretation of dates by listing dates including the spelled out month: Example: 24 JUN 96 or JUN 24 96

• Follow chain of command procedures for corresponding with superiors. For example, don't send a complaint via Email directly to the "top" just because you can.

• Be professional and careful what you say about others. Email is easily forwarded.

• Cite all quotes, references and sources and respect copyright and license agreements.

• It is considered extremely rude to forward personal email to mailing lists or Usenet without the original author's permission.

• Attaching return receipts to a message may be considered an invasion of privacy.

• Be careful when using sarcasm and humor. Without face to face communications your joke may be viewed as criticism. When being humorous, use emoticons to express humor. (tilt your head to the left to see the emoticon smile)
  :-) = happy face for humor
  

• Acronyms can be used to abbreviate when possible, however messages that are filled with acronyms can be confusing and annoying to the reader.
       Examples: IMHO= in my humble/honest opinion
                 FYI = for your information
                 BTW = by the way
                 Flame = antagonistic criticism

>
> I recently had a friend who was running a decent discussion group in the
> San Diego Area, get kicked off the Net. The problem was that there was
> another person who was using my friend's log on Name and responding to
> E-Mail, using rather unsavory language.
>
> My question is in regards to Internet Ethics and the possible avenues
> which he may be able to appeal the decision to boot. Additionally, what
> possibilities does he have to bring the proper person to the attention of
> the Internet "Monitors"?

The people that restrict access for an account are the system's administrators on the network that your friend worked on. If he gave his userID and password to someone else, then he is at fault and I doubt that any system's administrator would reinstate his account. The use of the network is a priviledge and giving away your password and UserID to another party is irresponsible and can cause problems just as your friend experienced.

If someone else got his UserID and password illegally without your friends prior knowledge then there is a "security" problem with the network your friend was working on. He should inform the administrators that neither did he give out his account and password, but also that their system has a security leak somewhere, and that someone accessed his account illegally.. If that is the case, your friend should have reported this incident earlier to the administrators -- maybe now it's too late - but it's worth a try to be able to clear his name.

Depending upon how "bad" the responses were, the person that broke into the account can be charge with "deformation (sp?) of character" on the part of your friend. He may even be charged for other reasons, but then again I don't know the details.

Here at the university we have an appeals process, and temporary revocation of accounts, does not constitute guilt. An investigation would follow after the temporary revocation, then if found guilty, the account would be terminated - if not, reinstated. He should investigate if this is the case in his situation.

Hope this helps.

> I read your Netiquette manual on the Internet. How can someone other
> than the sender or the recipient intercept/read an e-mail message and
> does that happen frequently???
>

All system's managers have access to user files on their systems. Email is basically just a file that gets stored in your default area on whatever system you work from, whether it be Unix, Vax, a Novell network.... Whether or not they look at the files/email depends on the system manager. Most do not have the time or would not even have the inclination to bother. Some are more curious than others. Some institutions and corporations tell the user that mail may be monitored. Generally it is high end corporations that fear users are selling trade secrets to compeditors via email.

Also, not only on your own system, but when that email gets sent through to other computer systems (in it's email travels), the system managers at those sites could conceivably, stop the mail, look at it, then send it on. But once again, it would take the effort on the part of the system manager, and I believe that that is rarely done. Definitely *unethical*. Plus mail is generally sent so fast (within seconds), that it would take a pre-planned motive, to shut down the mail router, and view mail files stored in their mail queues.

Also, mail has the possibility of bouncing. The user would then receive a message from postmaster that the mail bounced for whatever reason. But not only do you get your message back with a tagged on "postmaster" reply, but the system's postmaster (an actual HUMAN, generally the system's manager) also receives a copy of the message. The purpose of this is to help his/her user figure out the problem of why mailed bounced and possibly help. Hopefully, that bounced mail is not embarrassing, compromising or unethical (selling trade secrets, or selling pornographic materials), because it can conceivably be read by the postmaster or even the FBI that may setup "monitoring" sites along the Internet route. That is why the standard rule in sending email, is "Don't send anything you would not mind seeing on the evening news".

There is a big brew-ha-ha going on regarding encryption (a program that scrambles your mail, then you can unscramble it again with a key, i.e. password). The government wants it outlawed and they want the Internet community (in the United States), to only use Clipper, their own devised encryption package. They say they are protecting the best interest of the country and securing it from possible terrorist threats or highly illegal activity. The Internet Community of course says *NO WAY*, we want our privacy, not a "Big Brother Is Watching YOU" Internet.. More and more encryption packages are popping up because people are realizing that what they send to others is not secure.. I have myself a home brewed encryption package, that I use when I want to ensure that my mail is read by no one other than myself or the recipient, but pretty soon, they may cart me away for doing nothing more than protecting my privacy.

There are several LISTSERV's that discuss these issues and a usenet group called alt.privacy. If you need anymore information or you would like to voice your concerns, you should really subscribe to those discussion groups. You should also educate others about these issues and get people motivated to fight and protect fiercely their individual right to privacy.

> Wanted to know exactly what my e-mail signature should contain. Or is
> this a stupid question? I haven't gotten a straight answer from anyone
> yet.
>

Signatures vary from person to person.. Some people include their favorite quote, others put in ASCII art, others put disclaimer statements which states that their organization is not responsible for their personal statements.. It's all up to the individual.. I removed my phone number from mine, because I was receiving "rude phone calls".. Some people change their signatures on a day to day basis, or they have a "professional" signature, then a "casual" signature.. Some people's signature rarely changes for years and years (mine is an example of this).

An extremely simple signature would just include the person's full name and possibly the organization they are emailing from.. Once again, it's up to the individual and the general rule is to keep it fairly short (4-5 lines at most) otherwise people generally tend to get annoyed with long rambling signatures.. URL's in signatures are getting popular, because while reading messages using Web Browser mailer software, one can just click on the address in the signature to find out more about the individual.

Hope this helped --and to end this message... Here's my signature.

                    ********************************

(c) Copyright 1998, Arlene Rinaldi + Florida Atlantic University

Fellow nettrainers, below is a question that I was unable to answer. Maybe this is mainstream, but I have honestly not heard of "receipts" in mailers since we don't have them at my institution. Here is the message that I had responded to regarding whether "receipts" were considered poor netiquette. Let me know what you think.

----Beginning of forwarded message----

> > > Thank you for your post on Netiquette. I am a novice
> > > Internet user and was recently told that it is considered
> > > poor netiquette to put a receipt on messages I send.
> > > However, I did not see this addressed in your post. If this
> > > is the first time you are writing to someone and you're not
> > > sure whether the message will reach them, is it wrong to put
> > > a receipt on the message?
> > >
> >
> > On the contrary, when I teach network mail classes I *recommend* to my
> > students that if this is their first time sending mail to someone and
> > they are not sure if the destination is correct or want to verify that
> > the message went through, that they should put a note at the bottom
> > saying to please let the sender know if the message was successfully
> > sent. I do it myself often. Maybe I am not understanding what you
> > mean by "receipt".. Just a note at the bottom saying "Please let me
> > know if you received this." is generally sufficient.
> >
> >
> What I mean by "receipt" is a message that is automatically
> generated the minute the recipient "opens" your message,
> regardless whether the recipient later decides to answer you
> or not. You can request a notice of receipt in cc:mail
> (which is our system), just like with postal certified mail.
> It is _not_ the same as a request for a _personalized_
> acknowledgement from the person you wrote to.
>
> I am _not_ trying to be rude, but will put a "receipt" on
> this message, so you'll see what I mean. Before you can
> even read my message, you'll see a note on screen,
> "Returning receipt."
>
> So, is this considered poor netiquette?
>
> Thank you.

Maybe so -- I am not sure, I have never heard of this previously. Maybe
on *your* specific system, people consider it rude. If you are
sending out email via the Internet (not local mail within your
organization), then it would depend. If the recipient has cc:mail
also, they would get the desired "returning receipt" message, but
maybe not. I did not receive any message, since I use a different
type of mailer than you do. There are Unix mailers, Vax Mailers, PC
based mailers, MAC mailers...and several hundred different ones out
there that are not CC:mail and would not recognize what a receipt is -
meaning that the recipient would not "see" anything different (so why
would they care) other than your message only.

How about if I open up the discussion with fellow members of the
NETTRAIN listserv. It is a group of about 3,000 people on the
Internet that teach classes on Internet topics. If the majority agree
that this is bothersome or "rude" then I'll let you know and even add
it to the netiquette document. Once again, since I do not have
cc:mail - "receipts" are non-existent to me either in receiving one or
sending one.

----------------------------------
RECEIPTS AND RUDENESS SUMMARY

First off I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my question. Although I have accounts on several different systems on campus, none of the mailers used on the various systems have this option. That in itself states that it is not an Internet standard and that users of the Internet should never "assume" that it will become one or that this will work all the time.

A good point in training? I think so.. Just because one mailer has "bells and whistles" don't assume that all act the same way. In other words follow the KISS principal when sending mail via the Internet. For those that are from another country and are not familiar with the KISS jargon.. -it stands for "Keep it simple stupid". Local systems may follow different guidelines.

Below I have included condensed versions of the replies that I received from fellow nettrainers on the list and privately. I included statements regarding the "rudeness" issue although some of the commentors gave valid arguments on the technical aspects of "receipts" in mail.

Second, receipts can be considered a violation of privacy to "some" people and considered rude. When responding via the Internet, it is preferable to manually include a "personal" statement that the recipient can answer, i.e. "Please let me know if you received this message".

Third, and this is one that I already use in my training, but now will elaborate a bit more on this topic -- Thankfully the "Human" element of Internet correspondence is very much alive and well. Meaning that there is a mix and melting pot of different points of view, preferences and situations. Just because you don't get a message back right away, does that mean the person didn't receive it? They could have been on vacation, on a leave of absence, did not feel like answering your mail, were having a problem with their mail system, had a prejudice with all people with the same last name as yours...... It is the human element - and a system forced "receipt" i.e. "you got this, so why aren't you answering it" - *can* be consider an invasion of privacy.

I also can care less whether someone attaches a "return receipt" to my mail... I can't see it anyway, so why would I care. I would, if the sender then harrasses me regarding the time I received it and a delay in answering the message..

Generally messages will go through. If an invalid address is specified in most cases a "postmaster" message will be sent to you. If the message is extremely important - once again, send a personalized message asking for confirmation of receipt.

Once again, thanks for all that responded to this message. I will forward this message to the original "requestor" of this netiquette question.

----------------------------------------------

From: Jakob David <djj@ITS.NLC-BNC.CA>

Microsoft Mail, which we use, also allows use of the receipt feature, as likely do a host of other mail systems. This issue of "rude" or perhaps improper, is dependent upon its use. Consider the anologies:

1) if a spouse phones home to see if the other spouse is merely there, ie. to check up on that person, is that improper? Perhaps. If the same thing is accomplished through email? 2) if an office worker sends an important document through the postal system to a colleague as registered mail requiring a signature, is that improper? Doubt it. The same should hold true for an electronic medium. 3) if an employer is sending an electronic message with a return receipt to an employee to find out if that employee is arriving at work on time, is that improper? Hhmmm...

As you can see, sweeping generalities are not likely valid. Perhaps each situation should be best left to the individual. If a person feels "violated" by the return receipt, perhaps it should be their responsiblity to let the individual sending the message know such pratice is considered offensive.

Why some people take offence at others having the knowledge of what time and date they read the message (or are in their office, or at home, or wherever) says something about those people receiving the message, not necessarily those sending the message. Those sending the message probably just want to be sure it arrives; that person receiving it likely has something to hide if he/she doesn't appreciate the return receipt. But then again, maybe it is an invasion of privacy. I personally couldn't care less; others may not feel the same. As far as a training issue, I would suggest presenting both sides and leaving individuals to make their own conclusion.

-----------------------------------

From: FLEET TEACHOUT <FLEET@crsddg.nesea2400.navy.mil>

I have never heard that the use of a receipt request is rude, or even annoying. In e-mail to my friends, I often include a request for verification of non- delivery - "If you do not get this message, please let me know!" The internet system must be pretty good - I've never received verification of non-delivery in over 5 years of sending electronic mail! :)
 
-----------------------------------

From: Robert Minato <rminato@willamette.edu>

Point being, it seems to be largely a matter of personal taste in the usefulness vs. rudeness debate concerning automatic return receipt of mail.

Anyway, in my opinion, automatic return receipt is at least presumptuous. I consider e-mail like an answering machine, a device I find mostly useful. I get my messages and return the calls when I can, most of the time. Callers can reasonably assume I got their message and are free to draw their own conclusions if I don't call back.

----------------------------

From: Seth Ross <seth@albion.com>

There are other problems with read receipts. They usually reveal the exact time the message was read. Sometimes I would prefer that my correspondents not know that I'm one of those strange people who pokes around with email at 5 in the morning. Also, it's sometimes useful to hang back and pretend that you didn't get a particular email (maybe you want to buy time, or think it over). A read receipt forces the issue: the other party knows that you've seen their missive.

------------------

From: Jay Pfaffman <pfaffman@itc.org>

Gating cc:mail or any other Novell based e-mail system to the Internet is a bad idea because:

   Internet e-mail does not support all of the features of cc:mail
   in a standard way resulting in confusion and annoyance

-----------------------------

From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>

As your quoted message suggests, there are a wide assortment of mailers interoperating with Internet mail. They do not all support this same convention for automatic receipts.

Some mail software uses other ways of requesting receipts. When receipts are implemented, it is not always clear if the receipt reflects the delivery of mail to the target mailbox or the actual reading of the mail.

* On the other hand, requesting a human being to reply when they read your message, could be a *good* idea, because in the general case, this is the easiest, and sometimes the only way to know that your message _was_ delivered and read. (Bounced-mail non-delivery messages are not generated in all cases of non-delivery, though they are pretty common.)

* This brings up a final point, which does pertain to rudeness. Some people might consider it an invasion of their privacy for you to try and find out when they read mail.

This is less likely to apply to people working in the same organization or on a common project, but more likely to be the case with relative strangers one meets on the nets. This is another case where norms developed using on local e-mail systems could be misleading when applied to the Internet.

It is a judgement call if this would apply in a particular case. --------------------------

From: Nancy <HILL%CMSUVMA.BITNET@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

On our system it is called an acknowledgement. It is a common practice to have it set on to make sure the other person read your mail. It also lets you know when they read the item. I don't see why anyone would consider it rude.

----------------------------

From: John Wilkes Gophermeister <JWILKES@msuvx2.memphis.edu>

        IMHO, I would consider it not a "rudness" but an invasion
        of privacy. NO ONE KNOWS WHEN I READ MY SNAIL MAIL,
        or if I do.... Unless they take the time and effort
        to use "return rcpt requested," THEN all that know
        is that I got the mail, not that I read it.
-------------------------------

From: Andrew Brennan, Programming Bween <brennan@hal.hahnemann.edu>

    Then you don't see it as an intrusion to your own privacy? It's not     unlike every letter you receive being registered-mail - worse in that     they're not finding out when you *received* it, they're tagging it to     respond when you actually begin reading the message.

    If our system DID support that kind of nonsense, I'd have already spent     enough time figuring out how to disable it that I wouldn't consider it     rude ... it just wouldn't bother me. Put them on my list of bad ideas,     along with "WordPerfect as a standard" & "Dongles are good devices".

-----------------------------------------

From: GERRY NEUFELD <NEUFELD@BrandonU.CA>

In my opinion this seems like a useful function for ordinary email correspondence.

-----------------------------------------

From: Nancy <HILL%CMSUVMA.BITNET@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

I'm surprised that people would think that an acknowledgement is an invision of privacy. When an instructor sends assignments by email an acknowledgement is important. When a boss gives instructions by email it once again important to know that the person did read the information. I really don't care if someone knows when I read my mail. It's no big deal. The phone company knows when you make all your long distance phone calls. The post office can trace letters. Most email packages have the option, so what's the big deal!

------------------------------------

From: Norm Aleks <naleks@Library.UMMED.EDU>

In response to the original question about whether the receipts are rude: I used to be on a cc:Mail system and always hated getting return-receipted mail. There was one person in my department who always sent notes out with return receipts, and it got to where I just wouldn't open them :) ... I'd check to see if someone else had gotten the same message, then read theirs. Then I'd delete the message I'd gotten, or I'd save it and open it a month later. (I know, I know, this sounds extreme. But that's the reaction I had to that "receipt is being returned" message ...)

                    ********************************