Ingrid H. Shafer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
> At the same time I am deeply disturbed that my correspondent
> violated an essential principle of netiquette, NOT to forward
> private messages!  Surely all of us have at times said something
> concerning another which we would rather not have that other see.
 
I don't share the assumption that my mail will not be forwarded.  I
write e-mail assuming that the person about whom I'm writing will
ultimately see it.  While I agree in principle that the author of mail
should control its distribution, Ingrid, I see too many cultural
disagreements to depend on that being the rule.
 
For instance, where I work, many facts are exchanged via e-mail.
(E.g., "Persephone's signature is needed before you can have access to
the system.")  If I received a fact by e-mail and know that you need
to know about this fact, it's common here for me to forward the e-mail
to you.  Call it the work-mail-is-forwardable cultural assumption.
 
In all likelihood, there are chatting-with-your-friend mail
assumptions, chatting-with-your-system-administrator mail assumptions,
and on and on, and this number of cultural assumptions is all within
the same country, so imagine adding international assumptions.  Yet,
the medium is always the same -- e-mail.  The person to whom you send
a message may get confused about what set of rules you expected ("Did
they send this to me as their friend or as their system
administrator?")  and forward when you didn't want them to.
 
The only safe choice: Write e-mail as if it's public.  Cuz it could be.
 
It feels as if I'm pontificating.  The only reason I feel it's appropriate
on this list is that I've recently seen similar assumptions that a
confidential list's mail will be read only by the list's subscribers.
 
En paz,
Steve
--
Stephen W. Thompson, U. of PA, Data Administration, 215-898-1236, WWW has PGP
[log in to unmask]    URL=http://pobox.upenn.edu/~thompson/index.html
I believe this is dialogue, not fl*me, and hope you do, too. Responses welcome.