On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:27:21 +0200
Norbert Bollow <email@example.com> wrote:
>> all rights and expectations as to claims of authorship,
>> identification, and versimilitude. Those three I consider
>> critical -- the rest is dross.
> Hmm... there is another one: Before you redistribute something
> that I have written, I would expect that you at least try to check
> with me first.
I'm in split minds on that one as regards etiquette and social
responsibility. I firmly hold that personal (ie explicitly
identified recipient list) is private and must never be distributed
outside of the intersection of the authorship group (encluding
quotes) and the recipients without their explicit permission.
In the case of list posts the lines are a little less clear,
especially in these days of multiple public list archives (forma
list archives, mail-archive.com, individual members, etc). My
current senss is that if I should as a point of manners get
permission if I'm forwarding the message outside of the field/topic
to which it was initially posted, or to a venue which has
significantly different characteristics as compared to the original
forum (eg forwarding a message on a Wisconsin MG fan list to
Car&Driver magazine), but that this is not explicitly required.
Certainly its not as significant as the private mail case. As for
forwards or quotations within the field/topic, this seems a more
> The reason is that it could be that the text is outdated or it may
> contain errors (that I have been made aware of in the meantime)
> which should be fixed before further distribution of the text.
I look at this as a point of historical record, and as the
fundamental reason for insisting on full text quotation (encluding
headers) of messages. Date and venue are just as critical
contextual aspects of a message as who the author is.
J C Lawrence firstname.lastname@example.org
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--