Article View: uno.cwis
Article #7Re: Chain letters?
From: J S Greenfield
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:48
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:48
112 lines
5091 bytes
5091 bytes
In article <1992Dec13.120141.22163@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >>>I'd classify anything that says "send this to XX other people" as >>>a chain letter.......... >> >>OK, Wes. I bite. By this standard, isn't *your* post a "chain letter?" >> >>For that matter, isn't mine, and isn't every other post in this thread that >>has excerpted this portion of the original letter? > >Nope, because this isn't email. 8) Oh! But you didn't say that in your previous post!! :) Even so, if this had been a discussion over a listserv (and isn't caf-talk available via email--so that some people *do* get these posts via email!), or if I had sent my comment to you via email, your definition would have made my note a "chain letter." >I'll make the distinction more clear >later in this post......... OK, I guess you recognize the need for clarification, too... >>Personally, I agree with Carl. A toy car is not a car. Dana Carvey's >>parody of a Bush speech is not a Bush speech. And a parody of a chain >>letter is not (necessarily) a chain letter. > >Of course, you're assuming that recipients will correctly identify it >as a parody and refuse to "play along". Didn't Orson Welles make the >same assumption with _War of the Worlds_? Yes, and you are assuming that people reading your post will correctly identify it as simply *analysis* of a "chain letter," and not a chain letter, itself. >I've been bitten by chain letters several times; they have been, without >exception, useless, resource-intensive, and utterly valueless. I don't doubt it. >You may ask, "what's the difference between a chain letter and a Usenet >group?" > >[...] Personally, I don't ask. I already understand the importance difference with regard to mass dissemination of information. >>I certainly don't buy your rule of thumb for defining a chain letter. > >My definition of "chain letter" may not jibe with that used by the Postal >Service, but I'm more concerned with the effects than the content. I'll >stick by my original statement, with a slight rephrasing: > > Any email message whose *main* purpose is to generate email > traffic FOR THE SAKE OF GENERATING TRAFFIC can be classified > as an electronic "chain letter". Well, I don't think that the letter in question meets *this* definition. I think the letter in question is *obviously* a parody to all but the brain-dead. I don't doubt that it might get mailed out--but I would expect the mailing to simply be one individual mailing it to a friend, in order to share a joke (as one might do with any joke). Personally, I'd just dump it. (It wasn't amusing enough for me to bother sharing it with anyone.) >I do make a distinction between "chain letters" and mass mailings; there >may be a valid reason for such a mass mailing, but I would hope to get >some warning before 2100 copies of a 68Kb message drop into my /usr/mail >file system. <This happened a few years ago, and I received no warning; >it was a *very* long evening. Did you ever try to write a shellscript >to remove one particular message from user mailboxes *without* exposing >oneself to the contents of said mailboxes? I was rather proud of that >one....> > >[...] It's always nice to hear of such vigilance. (Somehow, we usually hear the *bad* examples in this newsgroup... :( ) >I agree completely that this is yet another judgement call. Of course, >the admin's obligation to provide effective computing service often re- >quires such independent action. I wouldn't take action in the absence >of a *real* problem, but you can bet that I'll do something when the >system starts taking noticable hits. If a note like this did, in fact, create a problem, then I would think it reasonable to ask those involved to avoid such notes in the future, even in jest. I certainly couldn't see taking disciplinary action against someone for, presumably unintentionally, creating that problem. If most of your users are brain-dead, and 1) think that the parody is a genuine "chain letter", and 2) actually buy what the "chain letter" say, you probably have all kinds of problems keeping them out of trouble. :) -- J. S. Greenfield greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (I like to put 'greeny' here, greeny@eff.org but my d*mn system wants a *real* name!) "What's the difference between an orange?"
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec13.204854.21573@eff.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!greenyReferences:
<1992Dec11.180920.28593@ms.uky.edu> <1992Dec12.215820.12189@eff.org> <1992Dec13.120141.22163@ms.uky.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: uno.cwis,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!greeny From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield) Subject: Re: Chain letters? Message-ID: <1992Dec13.204854.21573@eff.org> Originator: greeny@eff.org Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster) Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation References: <1992Dec11.180920.28593@ms.uky.edu> <1992Dec12.215820.12189@eff.org> <1992Dec13.120141.22163@ms.uky.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:48:54 GMT Lines: 112