6. Message System Mores616. Message System MoresThe great art of living easy and happy in society is to study proper behaviour, and even with ourmost intimate friends to observe politeness; otherwise we will insensibly treat each other with adegree of rudeness, and each will find himself despised in some measure by the other. --BOSWELL, London Journal (Dec.1, 1762)What is this?This section is an essay on manners, that is, message system manners. Laurel in its variousreleases has been in use for over three years at the time of this writing. In this time manypatterns of message system user behavior have been discovered, and doubtless many more suchpatterns will be discovered in the future. This section gathers together several observations ofLaurel user behavior in an effort to spread understanding of this new electronic message mediumand to instruct users in proper behavior.The contents of this section may be divided into roughly two kinds, objective observations ofmessage system social phenomena and definitely biased suggestions of standards. The opinionsexpressed herein are solely those of the author. These opinions are not based on scientific studiesor samples, but rather on certain gut feelings that have evolved through a close association withLaurel since its inception. I expect that several of the opinions set down here will receivevigorous debate, but so much the better to spread the word.A brief outline of this section follows.Communication patternsA brief discussion of structures within whichcommunication takes place.The wrong numberWhat to do when you receive a message intended forsomeone else.Rudeness and vulgarityWhy it appears in electronic mail.Message system costsHow the way we pay for communication affects whatwe say.Unsolicited mailWhat it is and when it is or isn't appropriate.The chain reactionA description of a phenomenon peculiar to electronicmail. The Reply-To feature and how it helps.Miscellaneous distribution list peccadillosDistribution list etiquette.Off-the-record responsesWhen and when not to publish.Hardcopy formsHow to permanently engrave messages properly.MasqueradingAnonymous (or worse) messages.Wizards vs. naive usersHow to keep arcana to yourself.The moral of this taleBe considerate of others.ÿî"¬ïfªpôXîFïfñîgï^ÏqôînïZfrô†ðDô‡înïXâôœðIôînïW^ôèôéðLî,ÆïUôÐôÑð(îgïPžsôîgïM,pôÆð<ôÇîgïKaô¿ð<ôÀð!îgïI–ô£ô¤ð<îgïGÌô±ðIô²îgïFôŠð!ô‹ð>îgïD7ôð)îgï@Åôºð#ô»ð:îgï>úô¨ðOô© îgï=/ôƒðdîgï;eôœð.ôð3îgï9šôÒðUôÓîgï7Ðôð;îgï4^ð(îgï0ìô€î' ôxôyð&î' ï/!ôîgï-3ô€î' ô ôð#î' ï+iôîgï){ô€î' ôîgï'ô€î' ô’ô“î' ï%Âôîgï#Ôô€î' ôð+îgï!æô€î' ô“ð3î' ï ôð-îgï.ô€ð+î' ôîgï@ô€î' ôîgïRô€ î' ôð*îgïdî' îgïvô€î' ôîgïˆô€î' ôägA<‡SÊLAUREL MANUAL62Communication patternsPart of the evolution of a society is the structure within which its members communicate. Face-to-face communication, both spoken and through gestures, has been with us for a very long time.Written communication and telephone communication have been employed for a substantiallylesser amount of time. Nevertheless, these modes of communication have been around longenough to have developed certain standards of conduct and a framework in which reasonablecommunication can take place.The electronic message medium has been available for a much shorter period of time, perhapstwenty or so years. I am purposely ignoring telegraphic communication, which has very different characteristicsdue to its long delays and high cost. Electronic message systems available on personal computers havebeen available for even less time, certainly less than ten years. In this time, standards ofelectronic communication have not yet had time to mature, so we are still groping toward aworkable electronic messaging society.In any of the mature communication media, each society places limits on what is consideredacceptable behavior. Vulgar language or gestures are generally frowned upon in face-to-facecommunication, except in smaller sub-societies in which this mode of behavior is necessary to bepart of the group. Shouting at close range is similarly considered to be in bad taste. Methods ofdealing with such behavior in face-to-face communication run from mild rejection of the speakerto complete avoidance of that speaker in the future. As the number of human societies is large,and each has had much experience with this means of communication, the means employed fordealing with such situations are quite varied. Within each group, however, the methods used canbe quite effective in stifling unwanted behaviors.I will try to list several kinds of situations that arise in the electronic message medium and meansfor dealing with them. Where possible, I will try to draw parallels to other more traditionalmodes of communication to illustrate acceptable manners. In addition, I will try to point out theways in which communicating via electronic mail is different from the traditional communicationmedia, and how this modifies the problems to be dealt with.The wrong numberWe all have dialed wrong numbers and received calls from people who have dialed wrongnumbers. The protocol for handling such situations is simple, and arises naturally as a result ofthe way in which standard phone calls are initiated. A typical wrong number dialog may be asfollows:Callee:Hello.Caller:Hello. May I speak to John?Callee:There is no one at this number by that name. I believe you have the wrongnumber.Caller:Oh. Isn't this 555-1234?Callee:No it isn't. (And sometimes ... ) This is 555-4321!Caller:Thank you. I'm sorry to have bothered you.î$ÌïfªptpôXtîgïfñpîgï_sôîgï[¤pô“ð)ô”ð7îgïYÙô‹ð_îgïXôÂðJôÃ îgïVDôÈôÉðAîgïTyô»ð9ô¼îgïR¯ôîgïO=ô«ð&ô¬ð5îgïMrô¡ô¢tð[îgïK¨ôð%pô‘ð5îgïIÝôÞð:ôßð#îgïHôÇðXôÈîgïFHôð&îgïBÖôÄðZîgïAôÌð\îgï?Aô‘ð.ô’ð2îgï=vô‡ôˆðQîgï;«ô‘ô’ðSîgï9áô”ð4ô•ð,îgï8ôŸðUô îgï6Kô‰ð/ôŠð1îgï4ôð2îgï1ô‡ð.ôˆð6îgï/Dô¾ðMô¿îgï-zô‹ðQôŒîgï+¯ô“ðQô” îgï)äôð;îgï%Xsîgï!æpôÙðCôÚîgï ô™ð#ôšð?îgïQôœôðVîgï‡î]ïîî]ïJîôî]ïîô—ô˜ðBîïµî]ïêîôî]ï îð4î]ïUîð+ÿ:g=‡Yý%6. Message System Mores63In postal communication, receiving misaddressed mail or mail for a former resident who hasmoved is akin to the telephone's wrong number. The post office's suggested remedy is for therecipient to line out the address and remail the letter. The post office will then attempt toforward the letter to the correct address, deliver it to the proper address, or return the letter tothe sender.Note that in both of these situations, it was not necessary to begin the actual conversation or openthe letter. Enough information is exchanged at the outset to determine if the parties in thecommunication are the correct ones. This is usually not true when comunicating via electronicmail.In electronic message systems, it is seldom the case that a message sent to a particular name isactually delivered to a recipient with a different name. A different situation is (unfortunately)common when a recipient has a popular name. The problem is that several people may have thesame last name, and Laurel (plus Grapevine) has not had convenient facilities for mapping aperson's actual name into that person's message system name. Thus, a person named Doe mayreceive mail for ADoe, BDoe, etc. Here, the original error is committed by the sender, who didnot consider that ADoe's message system name was actually ADoe, but just assumed that it wasDoe.The parallel to this situation in the telephone medium is actually a bit more elaborate than thedialog given above. It is more like:Callee:Hello.Caller:Hello. Is Johnny there?Callee:Hold on, I'll get him.John:Hello?Caller:Hey Johnny, let's boogie on down to the hoedown.John:Who is this?Caller:Come on buddih, this is good old Bodine!John:I don't know any Bodine.Caller:Oh. Ain't this 555-1234?and so on. Notice that in this case a partial name match has occurred, and it is only later in theconversation that one of the parties discovers that something is awry. In the electronic mail case,it is nearly always the case that the message must be at least partially read to determine that it hasreached an incorrect recipient.This situation can be (and has been) handled in several inappropriate ways. First, (and worst),the incorrect recipient can just ignore the message. No one gains through such inaction. Second,the incorrect recipient may send a response to the sender of the form "Stop sending me thistrash!" This is a bit more helpful, but not quite the best that can be done. Third, the incorrectrecipient may send the correct recipient a message of the form "Tell your senders what yourname is!" This is not even as good as the previous response, as a message system user cannotknow all possible senders.Proper consideration by all involved can alleviate the "wrong number" syndrome considerably.Senders of messages should know their recipients. When sending a message, if you are not sureof a person's message system name, look it up. In Palo Alto, the phone list has everyone'sÿî"¬ïfªpôXîFïfñîgï_ôÈðVôÉîgï]Kô¤ð]îgï[€ôÆð=ôÇð!îgïY¶ô¡ð<ô¢ð(îgïWëô îgïTyô€ðOôîgïR¯ôÅð]îgïPäô§ô¨ðAîgïOîgïK¨ô¥ô¦ðSîgïIÝô®ô¯ðMîgïHôˆô‰ðOîgïFHô¾ð/ô¿ð,îgïD}ô ðLô¡ îgïB²ô“ð[ô”îgï@èôšô›ðPîgï?îgï;«ô¢ð/ô£ð1îgï9áôð%î]ï7Bîî]ï5xîî]ï3îî]ï1ãîî]ï0îð0î]ï.Mîî]ï,ƒîð(î]ï*¸îî]ï(îîîgï&Oôðcîgï$…ô‹ðJôŒîgï"ºô€ðPôîgï ïôîgï}ô¤ô¥ðBîgï³ô†ðJô‡îgïèô»ð@ô¼îgïôô‘ð[îgïSô½ð2ô¾ð)îgïˆô¤ðVô¥îgï¾ôîgïLô²ð(ô³ð4îgï ô”ðQô•îgï·ôÅðPôÆ ÿ”gp=‡\›+LAUREL MANUAL64message system name correctly listed. Other organizations should do the same, and eventually amessage system wide "white pages" will be published. All these help, but not if the senders don'tuse these lists.When you realize that a message is not for you, use the Forward command to send it back to thesender along with your polite comment that the message has reached a "wrong number".Forwarding the message back is important, as the sender may not have a copy of that messageany more. Once you have determined that a you have received a "wrong number" message,STOP READING IT. The messages sent through the message system may have personalmaterial, and it is none of your business to peruse the entire message. It is for this reason that Ido not suggest forwarding the message to the proper recipient. Determining who is the properrecipient is the job of the sender. It is presumptuous to believe that you know who the properrecipient is; you may actually forward the message to yet another incorrect recipient. Besides,determining the correct recipient may require reading more of the message than you ought toread. (If you think you know the message system name of the correct recipient by the time yourealize that you are not the correct recipient, then you might include that name in your shortcovering note back to the sender. However, the mistaken sender should not expect correctidentification of the intended recipient, just as he or she would not expect it in the telephone orpostal mail systems.)Some further points to consider are these. The "wrong number" mishaps generally happen topeople who have common names and whose system names are exactly their last names. Thehonor of having one's system name be exactly one's last name is generally historical ("I was thefirst Doe hired here, therefore I'm entitled to be Doe.pa forever!") A reasonable solution wouldbe that no one have the plain name, but instead when ADoe arrives, then Doe has his or hermessage system name changed to BDoe (or whatever). In this way, the existing message systemfacilities will catch messages sent to Doe and return them as being sent to a non-existent name, atwhich point the sender can look up the correct message system name. (Note of course that theauthor has a relatively uncommon name, and makes these observations knowing full well thatthey don't apply to him.)One final point: one often heard response to this and other problems is "Why doesn't Laurel doit?" The answer is that some of these societal questions have been addressed by Laurel, butmany of them are so subtle that it would take a large amount of research into these problemsbefore workable institutions could be built into such a system. Piecemeal solutions will beforthcoming (in the form of the "white pages" and some .laurel runnable programs). In themeantime, consideration for others can go a long way.Rudeness and vulgarityThe electronic mail medium joins several disparate properties of other communication media inan interesting way. The display of mail on a personal computer is a rather personal experience.Certain feelings of privacy and ownership pervade a personal computer user's relationship withhis or her machine. Thus, the process of reading one's own electronic mail includes many of thepersonal aspects of face-to-face communication.On the other hand, sending electronic mail is much more impersonal. The recipient is notpresent, and nearly none of the social strictures that govern one's face-to-face comunication areÿî$ÌïfªptpôXtîgïfñpîgï_ô•ð%ô–ð:îgï]Kôð!ô‚ðAîgï[€ôîgïXôˆô‰ð(upîgïVDôïðKôðîgïTyô¥ðDô¦îgïR¯ô»ð.ô¼ð(îgïPäôçôèðDîgïOôð^ôŽîgïMOô¢ð>ô£îgïK„ô›ð'ôœð8îgïIºô¯ð&ô°ð:îgïGïô´ðIôµîgïF$ô‘ô’ðJîgïDZô³ðXô´îgïBôÓôÔð@îgï@Åô”ð;ô•ð(îgï>úôîgï;ˆô®ðWô¯îgï9½ô¹ ôºðLîgï7óôšð?ô›ð!îgï6(ôô‘ðBîgï4^ô«ðGô¬îgï2“ôšð;ô›ð!îgï0Èô„ðKô…îgï.þô›ð=ôœîgï-3ô¸ô¹ðNîgï+iôîgï'÷ô‘ð;ô’ð#îgï&,ô»ð>ô¼îgï$aô«ðMô¬îgï"—ôÖðTô×îgï ÌôÀð&ôÁð4îgïôð5îgïusîgïpô¤ð2ô¥ð+îgï9ô˜ð6ô™ð*îgïnô«ô¬ðKîgï¤ôŒðYôîgïÙôð/îgïgôÏðHôÐîgï œô§ô¨ðU Òg U=‡]¶M6. Message System Mores65present. The sender is also able to speak his or her piece completely, without any interveningexchanges with the recipients that might moderate the entire business. This situation is enhancedwhen the recipients are not named directly, but are addressed indirectly through an impersonaldistribution list. This imbalance in feelings between sender and recipient has wide rangingconsequences.An obvious consequence of this imbalance is that opinions expressed and the language used toexpress them in messages can be wildly inappropiate to the customs and expectations of therecipients of such a message. A reader may justifiably feel slapped in the face by a message heor she considers to be in extremely bad taste.When rebuked for such behavior, errant senders have been known to say "I didn't intend it thatway!" This is not good enough. The damage has already been done. The only remedy is forsenders to think about what they are saying and to whom they are saying it. The message systemto date has been fairly unrestricted. Only as long as the society of message system users practicesself-restraint will such a free-wheeling communication medium be tolerated. There are severalmeans of applying institutional censorship to the message system traffic, means that we hope willnever need to be implemented.Message system costsMany of the problems associated with improper use of the message system are exacerbated(caused?) by the lack of charging for message system usage. In nearly all other modes ofcommunication, "sending a message" implies a certain cost (or risk) which rises with the numberof recipients that are being reached. Free speech is, in this sense, not free at all. Certainly in afree society, one can say what one pleases, but not without paying for the means to say it. Letme illustrate this with some examples.In nearly every communication medium, costs for the use of that medium are borne by thesender of messages. Postal mail requires the sender to pay for a stamp for each copy of amessage that is sent. Telephone service is charged to the originator of calls, and each call (ingeneral) goes to only one recipient. Broadcasting messages via radio or television requires a largeinvestment on the part of the sender. The costs of printing handbills or posters are likewiseborne by their authors. Public speeches, if they are to reach a large audience, require use ofsound systems, etc., that are paid for by the speaker.It may be argued that recipients do pay some of the costs for using some of these systems.However, these costs (the price of a radio receiver, basic telephone service, etc.) are generallyconstant; they do not increase as received message usage increases. A receiver's cost forelectronic mail is similar in this respect in that the cost of a workstation on which Laurel runs isborne by the receiver.Some other modes of communication do require explicit payment by the receiver. Commercialfilms, books, magazines and records fall into this category. However, publication of thesematerials does involve a substantial financial risk. Material that is not likely to be well-received isseldom published, and when it is, large costs are often incurred by the publisher.î"¬ïfªpôXîFïfñîgï_ô©ð*ôªð5îgï]Kô‰ ôŠðTîgï[€ô§ô¨ðVîgïY¶ôÙðTôÚîgïWëîgïTyô¨ð0ô©ð,îgïR¯ôÈôÉð>îgïPäô˜ð7ô™ð)îgïOôð.îgïK¨ô’ô“ð?îgïIÝôŸð$ô ð6îgïHô…ð/ô†ð0îgïFHô‡ðdîgïD}ô²ðKô³îgïB²ôðIôîgï@èôîgï<\sîgï8êpôÙðWîgï7ôØôÙðMîgï5Uô‘ð*ô’ð5îgï3Šô“ðfîgï1¿ôœð+ôð5îgï/õôð&îgï,ƒôÉðFôÊîgï*¸ôÇð4ôÈð&îgï(îô¯ð]ô°îgï'#ôˆð^ô‰îgï%Xô¼ô½ðEîgï#Žô³ð,ô´ð3îgï!Ãôð6îgïQôÇð#ôÈð7îgï‡ôºð$ô»ð=îgï¼ôñð!ôòð9îgïñô’ð@ô“ð$îgï'ôîgïµô¢ ô£ðPîgïêôçð<ôèîgï ôƒðhîgïUôðR²g=‡Yý$LAUREL MANUAL66Electronic mail as implemented in Laurel and Grapevine has a very different cost structure. Thecost for a sender is minimal. It essentially consists of the time it takes to compose and send amessage. If time is considered the major cost factor, then it is the recipients who pay dearly forthe messages they receive. When the amount of time each recipient spends on a message sent toa large distribution list (even if a quick scan of part of the message followed by a Delete), issummed over all recipients, this is easily much more than the time consumed by the sender ofthat message.While we would like to keep the free structure of a message system, where any user can send anymessage to any other users, this freedom must be used with some care. When electronic messagesystems become widespread, they will undoubtedly change their cost structures to match those ofthe more traditional communication systems.Unsolicited mailThe existence of large public distribution lists in our message system makes it easy for a sender toreach a very wide audience. Each distribution list has a distinct purpose, e.g., lists of peopleinterested in particular topics, lists of employees in certain organizations, lists of members ofparticular projects, etc. Some lists are used primarily to keep track of all users of the messagesystem. These include such lists as AllPA^.PA, AllES^.ES, etc., which contain the names of allindividuals in those particular registries. There are also some lists maintained on a purelygeographical basis, e.g., PaloAlto^.PA, which lists all message system users in Palo Alto,California. This is not necessarily the same as AllPA^.pa, which includes people in the PA registry, but who maynot actually work in Palo Alto.The audiences addressed by these lists should not be considered a captive audience for all usersof the message system. The purpose of any distribution list may be discovered by any user (in aregistry served by Grapevine) by running the Maintain.laurel program and using the Type Entrycommand for that list (Appendix B). The purpose of the list will be printed in the Remark: entryfor that list. Although all lists are (currently) available for use by any message system user, manylists, e.g., Allx^.x where x is a registry name should not be used by anyone who doesn't have avery good reason for doing so.Many distribution lists exist for the enjoyment of their members who wish to receive items ofinterest to them. One should feel free to send an anouncement of an upcoming musical event inNorthern California, for instance, to Music^.PA. Such a message is quite inappropriate to send toAllPA^.PA, PaloAlto^.PA, etc. There are lists of message system users who have agreed to sufferthrough any and all messages. These lists (Junk^.PA, various CrankMail.dl files, etc.) are the onlylists to which ridiculous messages may be sent without incurring the justifiable wrath of messagesystem users.A Laurel user should understand when a message is appropriate to send to all people in his orher work group. Social values are different in different locations, and the members of each groupshould understand what they are. It has been observed that messages that are sent to audienceswider than the sender's immediate group are the ones that cause the most trouble.ÿî$ÌïfªptpôXtîgïfñpîgï_ôŒð:ôð&îgï]Kô£ð-ô¤ð4îgï[€ô“ð)ô”ð:îgïY¶ôŒðVôîgïWëô³ô´ðNupîgïV!ô¦ð#ô§ð9îgïTVôîgïPäô„ ô…ðQîgïOôˆð0ô‰ð.îgïMOô‘ð\ô’îgïK„ôð+îgïFøsîgïC†pô‚ðLôƒîgïA¼ô¹ð7ôºð*îgï?ñôÈð^ôÉîgï>&ô¦ð)ô§ð9îgï<\ô¢ð!ô£ð>îgï:‘ôÞð]îgï8ÆôðFô îgï6üô“tðDô” vtîgï5Uôîgï2pô›ôœðFîgï0;ôð7ôŽð)îgï.qô–ðNô—îgï,¦ô€ð[ôîgï*Ûô†ðGô‡îgï)ô›spspspðAôœîgï'Fôîgï#Ôô±ðZô²îgï" ô‹ð/ôŒð/îgï ?ô‚ðbîgïtôŠð@ô‹îgïªô€ ôðYîgïßô–ð6ô—ð+îgïôîgï£ô¢ðZô£îgïØôð"ô‚ð@îgï ô—ð$ô˜ð;îgïCôðQþgü<‡X:6. Message System Mores67Unfortunately, unsolicited messages have continued to be sent to inappropriate lists. Examples ofinappropriate messages for standard organizational or geographic lists are:"Does anyone know how to get my Alto fixed?""This is to let everyone in the message system world know that my phone number haschanged.""I want everyone to know that I really like my roofing contractor."I'm sure that each user of the message system can recall some other similar gem. The followingsections explore some of the consequences of unsolicited mail.The chain reactionTo add insult to injury, after some piece of particularly ridiculous mail has been broadcast to aninappropriate audience, it invariably follows that some recipients cannot control their urge tomake even bigger spectacles of themselves by sending their two cents to everyone who receivedthe original nonsense. While the original event is thought by many message system users to beannoying, the latter is considered to be downright stupid. Remember that once you push theDeliver button and watch the last chance to cancel fade away from your screen, there is no way toerase your comments from the collective memory of your peers.Further on, I will give details of the facilities available in Laurel to counteract this menace. Fornow, I would like to list some of the typical responses that have been sent not just to the originalperpetrator, but to the entire list of victims."Your message is inappropriate to send to all these good people.""If you don't like junk, then get off Junk^"."How do I get off Junk^?"and, my favorite,"Do you realize that if all of us replied to all of us (as I am doing right now) that thenumber of messages that would be sent would exceed the number of atoms in the knownuniverse . . . "It is my opinion that bombarding only the original sender of a ridiculous message with equallynonsensical replies is poetic justice. There have been many requests for a Fed up command to be added toLaurel for just this purpose. Although I am sympathetic to such requests, for now we've just added them to thecollected Laurel annals.An answer to the question "How do I get off Junk^?" (in a registry served by Grapevine) is thatthe program Maintain.laurel (Appendix B) can be used to examine and modify public distributionlists. If you cannot modify the list yourself due to its access controls, then send a message to oneof the people listed as an owner of that list.î"¬ïfªpôXîFïfñîgï_ô‡ðbîgï]KôðKî]ïYÙð,î]ïVgô¥ðRî]ïTî]ïQ+ôðCîgïM¹ô“ô”ðRîgïKîôð>îgïGbsîgïCðpô”ð\ô•îgïB%ôÈðQôÉ îgï@[ô ð)ô¡ð4îgï>ôðXôžîgï<Æô²ð(ô³ð3îgï:ûupô€ð$ôð6îgï90ôð=îgï5¾ô“ðSô”îgï3ôô‡ôˆðKîgï2)ôð/î]ï.·ðAî]ï+Eð-î]ï'Óîgï$aî]ï ïô¡ðPô¢î]ï%ô†ðFô‡î]ïZôîgïèô£ô¤ðVîgïô˜ð(tô™wtîgïvô§ð'ô¨ðHîgïòôîgï¤pôŽð#ôð<îgïÙôƒð,ô„ð2îgïô†ð%ô‡ð@îgïDôð. žgý<‡\îLAUREL MANUAL68The measures taken within Laurel to counteract the chain reaction phenomenon involve use of aspecial header field in messages called the Reply-To: field. Please note the spelling of "Reply-To": it contains a hyphen.When an answer to a message containing a Reply-To: field is initiated with the Answer command,only the name(s) listed in that field (plus your own name in the copies field) are put into theanswer form as recipients. In conjunction with the automatic addition of Reply-To: fields upondelivery, this gives a simple mechanism to break the chain of replies.When a message is sent with the Deliver command, if that message contains a large number ofrecipients or any public distribution lists, and it has no Reply-To: field, then the delivery isinterrupted pending user interaction to specify what kind of Reply-To: field is desired. A promptwill appear in the feedback region specifying the number of recipients and the number ofdistribution lists to which the message is being sent. It also asks you to choose a "Reply-To"option, with the reminder"ESC = answers to self only, A = answers to all, DEL = cancel delivery."At this point you must choose one of these options; delivery is postponed until you do so.The recommended option when sending to a large list is for you to strike the ESC key. This willautomatically insert a Reply-To: field, where is your name. Anyone who receivessuch a message and who initiates a response by using the Answer command will begin editing aform that includes only you and himself or herself as recipients.There are situations in which replying to the entire list of original recipients is appropriate. Thesesituations include sending technical messages to members of a project, scheduling queries forbackgammon nights, etc. In these cases, strike an A (upper or lower case) for your "Reply-To"choice. This will send the message without a Reply-To: field, so that recipients who use Answerwill get forms with all recipient names and lists included as recipients.If you are hopelessly confused by this, or you realize that you would like to edit the Reply-To:field slightly, then strike the DEL key (actually any key other than ESC or A) in answer to the "Reply-To" prompt. The Reply-To: line will be added to your message anyway, but the messagewill not be sent. At this point you may edit your message, perhaps adding a few extra names tothe Reply-To: field, and then invoke the Deliver command again.Note that you are not bothered by this prompt if you have already included a Reply-To: field inyour message. The reasoning behind this is that if a Reply-To: field is already in the outgoingmessage, then you must have already noticed the wide distribution of the message and takenappropriate steps. Good for you!One final note on this topic. Although Laurel provides these mechanisms to help break chainreactions, the ultimate responsibility for messages sent lies with their senders. Always check thelist of recipients in any message you are about to send. Excuses of the form "Laurel let it getaway." are feeble indeed.ÿî$ÌïfªptpôXtîgïfñpîgï_ô“ðLô”îgï]Kô¢ð<ô£ð%îgï[€ôîgïXôð8ô‚upîgïVDô¬ð_îgïTyô›ðIôœîgïR¯ôðFîgïO=ô£upð"ô¤îgïMrôÇôÈðHîgïK¨ô‚ôƒðOîgïIÝôÞôßð=îgïHô®ð:ô¯ð%îgïFHôî1ïC©tptptpîgïAôÍðIôÎîgï=™ôð#ôŽð*tpîgï;ÏôªðQô«îgï:ôšð9upô›îgï89ôðAîgï4Çô€ôð^îgï2ýôÇð=ôÈîgï12ôžð3tpôŸð#îgï/hô’ô“ðHuîgï-pôðIîgï*+ôœ ôðVîgï(`ô”tptð&pô•îgï&–ô“ð.ô”ð.îgï$ËôðCôîgï#ôð)upîgïôðVôŽîgïÄôŸð0ô ð0îgïùôÀðTôÁîgï/ôð!îgï½ô«ðHô¬îgïòô›ðRôœîgï(ô£ð/ô¤ð1îgï]ô2g<‡Võ16. Message System Mores69Miscellaneous distribution list peccadillosHere are several other tips to bear in mind when using distribution lists.A private distribution list is reasonable only when you wish to control all messages to that list. Ifthere is any reason to allow others to send to the list, then set up a public list. Instructions fordoing so are found in section 3.7.If you do set up a private distribution list, then do not include any public distribution list namesin it. Others may modify that list, thus indirectly modifying your private list.Names included in any distribution list should always be fully qualified, i.e., contain the .registrysuffix. Only this way will the list be useable by others outside your own registry.Off-the-record responsesThere are many situations in which a user submits a question to a wide audience, say to adistribution list of people interested in such questions, and indicates that he or she will collectresponses and later make them public. This is a most reasonable thing to do, and it helps toreduce the chain reaction effect. In Laurel 6, be sure to include a Reply-To: field whenperforming such services for your audience.A note of caution is in order here. Messages should be considered PRIVATE, unless otherwiseindicated. If your intention is to publish the responses, then by all means make that intentionclear in the same message that poses the original question. If your message did not make thatintention clear, and you decide that you would like to publish the responses, then follow up oneach response asking whether you may do so.If the intention to publish responses is clearly indicated in the original message, then publicationof any response is fine, as long as that response does not explicitly mention that it should beconsidered private.Hardcopy formsThe message system in Xerox is used for communication about Xerox related business and forpersonal messages. It is appropriate to put onto Xerox internal memo forms (electronicallygenerated or not) only those messages whose purpose is related to Xerox business. (Thecorporation has specific guidelines relating to the use of the Xerox logo, internal memo forms,etc. Common sense is all you need to derive these guidelines for yourself.) Many of the featuresand defaults of Laurel have been designed to allow users of the message system to behaveproperly with respect to these guidelines.If a message you send to others is intended to be a Xerox internal memo, include a PrintForm:InternalMemo line in its header. When your recipients print this message in the normal way, themessage will appear as an internal memo. On the other hand, if a message is truly frivolous, aPrintForm: Blank line in the header of your message is likely to prevent inappropriate printing.Refrain from mentioning any custom hardcopy form in a PrintFrom: field unless you know thatall of your recipients have included that custom form in their Laurel profiles.î"¬ïfªpôXîFïfñîgï_sôð+îgï[¤pðJîgïX2ô†ô‡ðHîgïVgô™ôšðIîgïTôð"îgïQ+ôðAôð#îgïO`ôðQîgïKîô‘ð'ô’ð>îgïJ#ôðTîgïE—sîgïB%pôÌðTôÍîgï@[ôðGô®îgï>ô¯ðTô°îgï<Æô ô¡ðGîgï:ûôð+îgï7‰ôð4ôžð(îgï5¾ô§ð:ô¨ð&îgï3ôô¤ô¥ð@îgï2)ôôžð@îgï0_ôð+îgï,íô“ðAô”ð#îgï+"ô´ðRôµîgï)Wôîgï$Ës îgï!Ypô«ô¬ð<îgïôÕôÖðBîgïÄôíôîð;îgïùôðJô®îgï/ô…ðbîgïdôÔð?ôÕîgïšôð*îgï(ô™ôšð>îgï]ô‡ôˆðHîgï’ôžð_îgï ÈôŸð`îgïýô—ðMô˜ îgï 3ôðO¢g ì=‡^LAUREL MANUAL70Although it is possible to change the default hardcopy form (used for those messages that do notcontain a PrintForm: field), this change should not be made unless you have a real need to do so.The Blank form is adequate for most hardcopies, and special printing is possible using the Form{brackets} in the hardcopy submenu on a case-by-case basis.MasqueradingOn occasion, people have received messages from fictitious senders, or even worse, from someonemasquerading as another real message system user. This is a most serious breach of messagesystem etiquette, and should be considered so by all message system users.A fictitious From: field is legitimate when a valid Sender: field is included. For instance,messages that are properly signed with an organization's name, say "The Laurel Group", may besent by explicitly typing a "From: The Laurel Group" line in the message header. Laurel willnotice that a From: field is already there, and it will include a Sender: line in thedelivered message instead of its usual From: line. Any time you receive a messagethat has a strange From: field, you may check the Sender: field for the actual sender.By a "masquerader" I mean someone who subverts the normal mechanisms embedded in thestandard message system programs to send messages of dubious value, without having his or hername appear in such messages. This action is possible not only in electronic message systems, butin other more traditional communication media as well. Masquerading as another may be acriminal act when committed using traditional communication media, with penalties specified inlaws that prohibit libel, slander and fraud. Other situations, such as telephone "breathers", aresimilarly outlawed.At this time, I do not know of any court cases involving libel, slander, etc. in an electronic mailcontext. Such cases are sure to arise when electronic mail does become more widespread.Masquerading in the message system is not cute or clever. Don't do it. Wizards vs. naive usersThis section is addressed mainly to the wizards who should know better. The population ofmessage system users covers a broad range from those who have knowledge of the most arcanedetails of a system to those who just barely understand the basics of using that system. Whenyou send a message to a wide audience, be considerate of the naive users, who may get confusedby technical jargon.This admonition extends to those who are using a new, restricted program. It does not help arecipient to hear "Oh you're using that old program. Well, I guess you're stuck." Just don'tmention such things to users who cannot take advantage of them.The moral of this taleThe moral of all this is simple: Be considerate. As we strive toward this goal, everyone's use ofthe message system will become even more of a joy than it already is.ÿî$ÌïfªptpôXtîgïfñpîgï_ôðKôŽîgï]Kôô‚ðMîgï[€ô•ðPô– uîgïY¶pupôð1îgïU*sîgïQ¸pô‡ôˆðGîgïOíô¸ð7ô¹ð$îgïN#ôðJîgïJ±ôØð]îgïHæô‘ð!ô’ð<îgïGô¤ð"ô¥ð;îgïEQô˜ð7ô™ð*îgïC†ôŽð^îgïA¼ôðVîgï>Jô½ðPô¾îgï<ô–ð<ô—ð!îgï:´ô€ ôðWîgï8êôÄôÅðKîgï7ô£ð;ô¤ð#îgï5Uô¦ðGô§îgï3Šôîgï0ô—ðHô˜îgï.MôÞ ôßðJîgï,ƒôðHîgï'÷sîgï$…pôÁðGôÂîgï"ºô¡ð#ô¢ð7îgï ïô¦ô§ð>îgï%ôð<ôŽð"îgïZôîgïèô¦ð]îgïô±ð"ô²ð<îgïSôð?îgïÇsîgïUpô–ô—ðBîgïŠôðE:gC=‡[È TIMESROMAN TIMESROMAN HELVETICA TIMESROMAN TIMESROMAN TIMESROMAN TIMESROMAN TIMESROMANáÛÕ ³ Ü) Æ28 ÏAôIñQÿÿj/TR—†øÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿlaurel6-6.bravoBrotzJuly 22, 1981 5:36 PM