Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!mmm!bngofor
From: bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.rumor,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Bring back net.bizarre!
Message-ID: <735@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Apr-86 11:20:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.735
Posted: Thu Apr 24 11:20:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 05:10:03 EDT
References: <703@frog.UUCP> <12400018@uiucdcs> <2410@jhunix.UUCP> <132@fai.UUCP> <4697@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.rumor:2057 net.news.adm:645

In article <4697@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes:
>In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
>> How do the rest of you system administrators feel?  Is it within your
>> rights to open other people's mail?
>
>I think the last word above should be E-mail, and I think it matters.  We use
>the term "mail" and derive from that word a lot of connotations, some of which
>may be incorrect.  I would be very angry if you opened a sealed envelope 
>Ed Nather

	You are right that there is a difference between "mail" and "E-mail",
but I don't think it changes the ethics of the situation. E-mail is probably
somewhere between mail and telephone conversations as far as eavesdroppability
(how's that for a word?) is concerned. It is considered unethical to "open"
other people's telephone conversations, too.

	The sysop who originally spurred this conversation argued that he
wanted to know what his phone bills were paying for, and used that as a
justification for "opening" others' mail. By the same token, should he
be able to eavesdrop on phone conversations? I think the same set of 
arguments apply. If he wants to know what he's paying for when he pays
his phone bills, I'll tell him - PRIVATE MESSAGES. And that's all he has
a right to know. 


					--MKR

"There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden"