🚀 go-pugleaf

Wes Morgan writes:

>>}Section 3: Electronic Mail Policy
>>}3.4   All mailing lists with more than 10 members must be registered with
>>}      the ECC staff. [Paragraph 1.21u, CSC]
[...]

>My rationale behind this provision comes from several experiences:

>	1) I have had problems with users creating *massive* mailing
>	   lists (over 200 members) with the 'alias' function of mailx.
>	   One of these lists started shipping uuencoded images around.
>	   Chaos ensued.

I think it would be better to prohibit this mailing list on the
grounds of "substantial disruption", than not preapproved.

>	2) Users have also created mailing lists of people they don't
>	   even know, in the hopes of meeting them. 

I don't think this is limited to lists of over size 10. Also, I don't
see how preapproval will help, unless you are going to double check
all the entries in the list.

If a person complains about unwanted email, you should tell the sender
to stop sending email to that person.

>	3) Several students have left this organization without informing
>	   their list members; as a result, I've been getting dozens of
>	   messages from users/postmasters complaining about "user unknown"
>	   email bounces.

This must happen with regular email, too. Also, from what I know about
list members, many will ignore notification anyway. How about just
suggesting that departing students send a "change of address" message
to their frequent email correspondents.

>	4) Two users tried to import the entire UK "email phone book" into
>	   a mailing list.  There are over 6000 addresses in the "phone book";
>	   with the transcription errors that were made, it took me over two
>	   weeks to fix the errors, track it down and kill it.

Again, get them for "substantial disruption"

>>}It is important to note that the ECC staff will make arrangements for large
>>}mailing lists; however, we will not support mailing lists whose subjects
>>}violate University policy, State law, or Federal law.  (In any situation where
>>}this is a possibility, the University Counsel will be asked for a decision.)

>I know that this particular example has been bounced around for years, but
>what about a "child porn image list"?  What about a list that passes out
>credit card numbers?

These lists are already prohibited because they are illegal. Do you
really want to take even partial responsibility for the lists that you
do approve of? What if you give it an official University OK, and
*then* it starts being used for credit cards?

I'm enclosing a reference.

- Carl

The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center
(1985,1988), p. 37:

"Only two court cases have considered the liability question, and in
both cases the courts found that the institution was free from
liability because control was in the hands of the students."{33,34}

...

"Thus, despite arguments by administrators that they need to prevent
libel, it appears that just the opposite is true: Where administrators
have not exercised control over the content of student publications,
the courts have refused to hold their schools responsible for libel
appearing in such publication. If, however, administrators exercise
the power of prior review, then the court will also hold them and
their schools liable for the contents of such publications.
Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation between school
administration and editor functions may also result in the reduction
of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize that substantial
funds are beyond their reach.

{33} _Mazart v. State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981)

{34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d 1300 (La. App. 1983)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=