🚀 go-pugleaf

In <scs.674919197@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:

>eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes:

>>   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
>>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
>>system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my
>>business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages.
>>This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one
>>another, one using ruder language than the other. 
>> 
>>   The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail
>>boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know.
>>What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut
>>down "alt.flame"?

>You should regard yourself as a 'common carrier' in this case.  Your
>job is to deliver the mail, not censor it.  You provide connectivity
>service to users, not behavioural control.  If somone doesn't like
>the contact of another person, they should take it to the people who
>have authority over that person, not the sysadmin.  If you got a rude
>letter from your banker, who would you complain to -- the post office
>or the president of the bank?

I generally agree, but not in all cases.  In the case of a corporate or
government E-Mail system the function of the gateway and its
administrator might be more than just a common carrier.  Rather, in many
cases it should be regarded as a "liason" to the organization and
"representative" to the external E-Mail community.

I don't mean that E-Mail should be monitored or censored on a regular
basis but,in many cases theadministrator should support the user in
his/her organization in alleviating problems in any way possible,
including blocking mail from offensive parties if requested.

I think interconnectivity is a wonderful thing and it would be a shame
if a corporation or agency had to shut down their gateway because the
administrator told the CEO he was not responsible for the content of
mail and could not effectively help him solve the problem.

The sysadmin should be there to assist their users in ANY way possible.

>As for dealing with the offended party, inform him that you have no
>authority over your users and suggest that he contact someone at your
>site who has such authority.

Further, I think this kind of approach gives a poor image of your
organization.  I know this wouldn't work in our case.  When (I hope
soon) more of our users get on-line I would think management would
consider any harassing mail to be a poor reflection on the
Administration and would want the problem solved posthaste.

I would think that in a case where you are in the same organization or
closely linked you could pass the complaint along to the proper party
yourself (if the grievance sounds legit).  If you are a member of the
same organization and were acting as a representative you could even
have some resolution procedures on paper.  Such procedures might entail:

A Confront the accused in a non-accusational tone.  Do they
| confirm that a message was sent?
|
+-yes-B Get some background info.  Was the content questionable?
|     |
|     C-yes--- Pass the information along to the persons manager.
|     |
|     D-no---- Drop the subject.
|     |
F-no--E-maybe- Ask the complaintant for a copy and attempt to
               authenticate and review it.  Return to B.

In any case I think you should inform the other party that the matter is
being investigated and that you will try to help.  Maybe even attempt to
inform them of the resolution if appropriate.

Of course, this approach might not apply to those administrators of
systems like UUNET or providers of general news and mail feeds, but in
cases where a person who appears to be a representative of an
organization to which image is important, I think the sysop has to
respond positively and quickly or risk losing the resource (gateway) to
"bad press".
-- 
--
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov