Time: Sun Jul 20 14:31:50 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13031 for [address in tool bar]; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 14:31:52 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA09181; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 14:30:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 14:30:14 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLF: Reducing Unwanted Email: An Unsolicited Proposal Reducing Unwanted Email: An Unsolicited Proposal by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved After watching and observing the behavior of Internet email users, I would like to share a few key observations, and then make a few key suggestions for managing ourselves, rather than to have a corrupt Congress try to make criminals out of all of us -- again. They should talk! #1: Despite the availability of "Blind Copy" features, many users continue to display the entire list of recipient addresses in their email broadcasts. This allows recipients to obtain the entire list which is used in this way, and to build their own private broadcast lists, by adding each such list to their own master list(s). Solutions: encourage migration to "Blind Copy" as a recommended mode of use, in all cases. Email lists can be transmitted like any other email message -- in the body of the message -- if and when that is the intended purpose of any given message. #2: If we receive U.S. Mail with a new address on it, there is nothing to prevent us from posting unsolicited printed matter to that address. This is not only "legal," but it is also encouraged by the U.S. Postal Service, which makes tons of money off "junk mail." There is no real difference between such "junk mail", and the transmission of unsolicited email messages to one or more email addresses which appear on our monitor screens and, hence, on our hard disks. More to the point, outlawing unsolicited email while permitting unsolicited U.S. Mail, smacks of unequal protection under the law, and would probably fail that constitutional test. Solutions: allow unsolicited transmission of email to any email address which appears on our monitor screens. If the recipient does not wish to receive any further unsolicited email from that sender, the recipient and sender can work it out between the two of them. If senders observe the recommendations in point #1 above, then it is less likely that entire lists will be communicated to every address on such lists. #3: The issue of privacy is a controlling principle, which is violated when a sender fails to use the "Blind Copy" feature, or fails to migrate to software which supports this feature. This is so because privacy is still a fundamental Right. Solutions: privacy options should be added to list servers, wherever possible. For example, if John is a member of private list USNEWS, it should be possible for John to suppress his own email address when John posts to this list. As it is now, many list servers display John's email address when broadcasting John's post to all the members of that list. This is a clear privacy violation. #4: Filtering is a well developed software technology, and yet many users are failing to use it at all, or to exploit it fully. For example, if all email from any given sender is considered "junk" by any given recipient, it is very easy to route all such mail into the "trash" file, which is then deleted automatically upon Exit from the email program. Solutions: encourage exploitation and migration to filtering functions in email software, with liberal utilization of automatic deletion of "trash" files. Another fairly simple solution is to migrate to larger hard disks. Industry projections see 50% reductions in hard disk prices PER YEAR, for the next 3 to 5 years. Adding hard disks, and/or switching to larger hard disk, is becoming rather routine. Also, migrating to FAT32 systems under Windows 95 SR2 will alleviate the unnecessary storage overhead caused by FAT16 file systems on older Windows machines. Summary: These are just some thoughts that have been rolling around upstairs. I have tried, whenever possible, to use the "Blind Copy" feature in Eudora Pro, because I believe that it is the best and only way I have to preserve the privacy of individuals whose email addresses are in my various email lists (e.g. "Friends", "SLS", "Contact Master", "Press Master", etc.) On the other hand, if someone has sent me email, whether solicited or not, then I possess that individual's email address, which is not likely to change in the near future. Providing more mechanisms to keep email addresses private seems to be the best overall solution, imho. Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated! If you want us to REMOVE you, you need only ask. Now that our email lists are better organized, these requests can be handled much more quickly. Thank you again, in advance, for your helpful suggestions and your consideration. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail