sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/17/89)
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: |In article <1989Oct14.193713.3567@ginger.acc.com> pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) writes: |>Hrumph! Some times I wish I hadn't cancelled my alt-sources message |>destroyer. [...] |I recommend email to the author (of the objectionable alt.sources article, |not Paul) with a few choice comments about how undesirable of a thing it |is to do what he has done. First of all, sending a form letter to someone asking them to cancel their message is an example of hopeless optimism. Most people HATE form letters, and tend to throw them away, or worse do exactly the opposite of what they want. Second, demanding that a user cancel his message is hardly going to win any sympathy points. If you want to get users to do what you want, especially those you never see in person, you have to persuade them. Accusing them of a crime, and demanding to rectify that crime is only going to piss them off. Finally, publishing unsolicited received email would hardly break any laws. When someone sends you something out of the blue to your post office box, it's free and yours. That's the law. I suspect that if it came to a court case exactly the same would be held for an unsolicited email message. There's plenty of precedent for it. If you want to cut down the alt.sources chatter, consider using a little psychology. Instead of a confrontational net.police type message, consider what might work better. Get inside people's heads just a little bit. We don't want people getting a gestapo type image of Usenet. Be gentle. You might be amazed how much better it works. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** ``So if you weight long enough, you'll get your packets, right?''