ronald@ibmpcug.UUCP (Ronald Khoo) (06/16/89)
[This issue has been extensively debated before in the news.* groups. I have redirected followups to news.misc as it has NOTHING to do with indian culture.. How about soc.culture.news or soc.culture.usenet ? :-) ] I believe the general consensus of the net was that private e-mail was PRIVATE email remains the property of the SENDER, taking into account precendents from letter mail. Should this point not be made in one of the news.announce.newusers articles? I just looked again and didn't see it there... In article <2750@wpi.wpi.edu> bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu (B Maruti) writes: %In article <1989Jun13.175158.15024@cs.rochester.edu>, raman@cs.rochester.edu (Rajeev Raman) writes: %> %> "THOU SHALT NOT POST PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT PERMISSION*" %> %> rr %> %> * - Unless unsolicited.. in this case, Mr. Bhatia, I think you (indirectly) %> solicited it by taking a public stand on the matter. %> -- %> Rajeev Raman % % I disagree. I think the recepient has every right to publish the % e-mail communication he receives. S/he becomes the owner of it once % it takes up space on his/her disk. This rule is especially useful % when the sender of the communication is a stranger, or when % the mail is unpleasant (Reference: the mail from A. J. to Asjeet % Lamba some time back). Further, taking a public stand on a matter % does not mean that e-mail is solicited (sending e-mail is actually % an invasion of one's privacy, in my opinion). % % - Maruti bmaruti@wpi.wpi.edu -- Ronald Khoo @ The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360, Harrow HA1 4LQ Phone: +44 -1- 863 1191 Domain: ronald@ibmpcug.CO.UK Path: ...!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!ronald Fax: +44 -1- 863 6095 My Opinions? Sell 'em if you can. See if I care!