- Skip to page content
Objective Analysis. Effective Solutions.
Toggle Menu
Site-wide navigation
- About RAND
- RAND at a Glance
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
- RAND History
- Leadership
- Organizational Structure
- Contacts
- Locations
- Quality Standards
- Educational Opportunities
- Employment
- RAND Campaign
- Press Room
- Events
Research
Research Areas
- Children, Families, and Communities
- Cyber and Data Sciences
- Education and Literacy
- Energy and Environment
- Health, Health Care, and Aging
- Homeland Security and Public Safety
- Infrastructure and Transportation
- International Affairs
- Law and Business
- National Security and Terrorism
- Science and Technology
- Social Equity
- Workers and the Workplace
Research Divisions
- RAND Army Research Division
- RAND Australia
- RAND Education and Labor
- RAND Europe
- RAND Health Care
- RAND Homeland Security Research Division
- RAND National Security Research Division
- RAND Project AIR FORCE
- RAND Social and Economic Well-Being
Featured Research Activities
- RAND International
- Center for Asia Pacific Policy
- Center for Global Risk and Security
- Center for Middle East Public Policy
- Center for Russia and Eurasia
- RAND Gulf States Policy Institute
Latest Insights
Reports
/content/admin/rand-header/jcr:content/par/header/reports
Blog Posts
/content/admin/rand-header/jcr:content/par/header/blogPosts
Policy Experts
By Research Area
- Children, Families, and Communities
- Cyber and Data Sciences
- Education and Literacy
- Energy and Environment
- Health, Health Care, and Aging
- Homeland Security and Public Safety
- Infrastructure and Transportation
- International Affairs
- Law and Business
- National Security and Terrorism
- Science and Technology
- Social Equity
- Workers and the Workplace
Capabilities
Drawing upon decades of experience, RAND provides research services, systematic analysis, and innovative thinking to a global clientele that includes government agencies, foundations, and private-sector firms.
Graduate School
Student Spotlight
- Priya Gandhi
Assistant Policy Researcher, RAND; Ph.D. Candidate, Pardee RAND Graduate School
- Jim Mignano
Assistant Policy Researcher, RAND; Ph.D. Student, Pardee RAND Graduate School
-
About
- 中文[简体]
- العربية
- Sign In Sign out
- Cart
- RAND
- Published Research
- Reports
- >R-3283
Download
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Add to Cart | Paperback42 pages | $20.00 | $16.00 20% Web Discount |
This report was published in July 1985; the full text appears below. This research in the public interest was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and in part by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors and the fees earned on client-funded research.
Contents
Preface
Summary
I. An Example
II. What This Report Is About
III. Electronic Mail Is a Fundamentally New Medium
- Speed
- Permanence
- Cost of Distribution
- Organizations' Ability to Control the Medium
IV. Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail
- Sending Messages
- Receiving and Responding to Messages
- Acting as Coordinator/Leader of an Interest Group
- The Phenomenon of "Flaming"
V. In Conclusion
Appendix: Network Interest Groups
Glossary
Preface
Electronic mail and message systems are playing an increasing role in the work we perform. The effects, and side effects, of this new communication medium can be substantial. This report discusses a number of issues related to the use of electronic mail and presents a set of guidelines that should help lead to its effective use.
The report is not an introduction to electronic mail systems, computers, or communication systems. It does not survey existing mail systems or compare and contrast them. Rather, it is a discussion of some important general attributes of such systems, and the effects of those attributes on the quality and appropriateness of communication. The authors discuss the "etiquette" of sending and receiving electronic mail, drawing on personal observation of inappropriate or counterproductive use of these systems. By presenting some initial guidelines for their use, the authors hope to accelerate the process by which social customs and behavior appropriate to electronic mail become established, and thereby to accelerate the effective use of such systems.
The intended audience is persons possessing some familiarity with electronic mail systems, or considering adopting them for individual or institutional use. The guidelines discussed here may ease their transition to, and understanding of, this new and quite fundamentally different communication medium. In addition, the authors hope that the discussion will stimulate reflection by experienced users on their own evolving rules, and thus promote an exchange of views on appropriate electronic mail behavior.
The report was prepared with support from the National Science Foundation and by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors and the fees earned on client-funded research.
Summary
Electronic mail and messaging systems, and electronic bulletin boards, are an incredibly powerful and effective means of communication. Because of this, they will grow and become one of the primary means of communication for most of us.
These media are quite different from any other means of communication. Some of the dimensions along which they differ are: speed [of initiating contact, and of transmitting information once contact is established]; permanence of the message; cost of distribution, to individuals and to groups; an organization's desire and ability to filter, channel, record, and control messages; experience of both an individual and of our culture in dealing with this new medium.
Perhaps the most important phenomenon in electronic mail systems is the likelihood that the recipient will react negatively or inappropriately in reading material that might well have been misinterpreted. The misinterpretation results from several attributes of the medium that allow casual and formal messages to look superficially the same; that allow near-instantaneous, rather than reasoned, response; that don't permit feedback during the delivery of a message [as in personal conversation]; and that require modification to many old traditions of communication. A related phenomenon is "flaming," in which emotions are expressed via electronic mail, sometimes labeled as such, and sometimes not. There is a need, even a greater willingness, to express emotion in electronic mail; if misused [for example, in hastily responding to a misinterpreted message], it impedes or even blocks communication.
A second very important phenomenon is the noncontrollability of who will see a message. Electronic messages seem quite evanescent, but in fact they can live on for years on disk archives, to reappear later in a variety of printed forms, some of which might be much more formal than was ever intended or foreseen.
Old rules of behavior in communicating do not automatically apply to this new medium. Some rules we have found useful for electronic mail [not all of which are unique to this medium] include:
- In sending messages
- Create single-subject messages whenever possible
- Assume that any message you send is permanent
- Have in mind a model of your intended audience
- Keep the list of recipients and Cc:s to a minimum
- Separate opinion from non-opinion, and clearly label each
- If you must express emotion in a message, clearly label it
- Other content labels are useful
- Think about the level of formality you put in a message
- Identify yourself and your affiliations clearly
- Be selective in broadcasts for information
- Do not insult or criticize third parties without giving them a chance to respond.
- In receiving
and responding to messages
- If you receive a message intended for another person, don't just ignore it
- Avoid responding while emotional
- If a message generates emotions, look again
- Assume the honesty and competence of the sender
- Try to separate opinion from non-opinion while reading a message, so you can respond appropriately
- Consider whom you should respond to
- Consider alternative media
- Avoid irrelevancies.
- In
acting as a coordinator/leader of an interest group
- Perform relevant groupings
- Use uniform packaging, especially in the "Subject:" line
- Exercise reasonable editorship
- Timeliness is important.
Electronic mail is in its infancy, as is our understanding of it. We have collected some guidelines that seem to point in proper directions, and have personally used them in our own use of the medium. Many of them appear to be common sense in a new guise, but they are included because we've seen them violated in practice too often to ignore.
Electronic mail and messaging systems have novel characteristics that will lead toward their becoming a key, even dominant, communication medium in the coming decades. Understanding the unique attributes of this medium, and their effect on users, will help us all to avoid unwanted side effects while obtaining the benefits from this new and important means of communication.
I. An Example
Recently the following message[1] appeared in the electronic inbox of one of the authors:
Received: From RAND-RELAY by RAND-UNIX at Fri May 27 20:07:55 1983
Date: Friday, 27 May 1983 20:05-PDT
To: ISD-ALL at RAND-UNIX
Subject: I'm puzzled!
From: hearn at RAND-RELAY
Does anyone know this guy, or the report to which he refers?
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Friday, 27 May 1983 14:15-PDT
From: trw-unix!csuf!dlm
Received: from rand-unix by rand-relay.ARPA ; 27 May 83 18:48:39 PDT [Fri]
To: trw-unix!randvax!hearn@Rand-Relay
Subject: Sun Microstation
I was given a copy of your trip report concerning SUN workstations
dated Feb 2, 1983. We are thinking of getting a couple of them
ourselves, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me
some updated impressions. Have you dealt with SUN any more
since then?
Thanks in advance,
David L. Marks
Johnson International
...!csuf!dav
------- End of Forwarded Message
In many respects, this is a typical electronic message. It is one of hundreds received each week by each author, and by thousands of other electronic mail users throughout the country. For example, the recipient's mail directory around that same time also contained:
260 5/18 tora Re: Danger! Psychologists at Work 261 5/19 francine telephone message " or ":-]" [turn the page a quarter-turn clockwise for maximum effect], indicates the author intends something as a joke, or less frequently as an ironic smile.
All of these labels reduce shock, surprise, or disappointment in the reader that are normally avoided by other social conventions in face-to-face interactive conversations. They thus contribute to an expansion of normal etiquette into this newer medium.
Think about the level of formality you put in a message
Consider the following message:
[Message inbox:291]
Received: by rand-unix.ARPA; Fri, 21 Dec 84 11:40:18 pst
From: Bob Anderson
Date: 21 Dec 84 11:40:12 PST [Fri]
To: randvax!anderson, randvax!gillogly, randvax!norm
Subject: meeting ..
we need to setup a meeting bet. jim you and i -- can you arange?
i'm free next wed. thks.
Much about this message conveys its informality: lack of careful capitalization in the subject field, informal grammar, lack of specific form, content that appears to have been typed hurriedly [although this lack of rigor might well be deliberate].
Here's another example of a message:
[Message inbox:292]
Received: by rand-unix.ARPA; Fri, 21 Dec 84 11:48:09 pst
From: Bob Anderson
Date: 21 Dec 84 11:48:02 PST [Fri]
To: randvax!fowles, randvax!martin, randvax!wilson, randvax!adamson
Subject: MEETING ON FY86 PLANNING, 2PM 12/28/84, CONFERENCE ROOM 1
There will be a meeting of the FY86 planning task force in
Conference Room 1 on December 28, 1984 at 2pm. The Agenda
for the meeting is:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Topic Presenter Time
-----------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Business Plan John Fowles 30 min.
Budget Forecast for FY86 Sue Martin 15 "
New Product Announcements Peter Wilson 20 "
Action Items for 1st Qtr FY86 Jane Adamson 25 "
-----------------------------------------------------------
The formality of this message can been seen from the care that was put into it. It wasn't just dashed off some midnight before logging off, but rather was probably entered, then edited, using a word processing program.
Why do we care about the level of formality of a message? Simply because the content of the second message should be given more attention and care when received than the first. Words were chosen in the second, and therefore could be expected to be chosen carefully to convey the meaning intended. In the first, informal, message, the words might well have been dashed off, and should be taken quite lightly. You should not try to read deep meaning into a hasty note. [In our other written correspondence, we have other clues: Scribbled notes on the back of an envelope are treated more informally than typed letters. However, on your terminal, all electronic messages in one sense look the same, so greater attention must be paid to what clues there are to their level of informality.]
The following three guidelines are especially relevant in sending a message to a bulletin board or interest group, where some or all recipients might not know each other personally.
Identify yourself and your affiliations clearly
This helps your recipients put your message in some context. If you put in a company affiliation for identification, and yet are expressing personal opinions, not company policy, that should be made clear. If you comment on a product, you should make clear any affiliation with that product and its manufacturer or distributor. [Some of these identifications are traditionally handled by the use, or deliberate non-use, of a corporate letterhead in sending a message. Many electronic mail systems have no equivalent yet,[5] so explicitly labeling the affiliation becomes more important.]
Here's an example of poor labeling of affiliation:
Received: from brl-vgr.arpa by rand-unix.ARPA; Sun, 14 Oct 84 15:28:36 pdt
Received: from mit-mc.arpa by BRL-VGR.ARPA id a029687; 14 Oct 84 18:17 EDT
Date: 14 October 1984 17:31-EDT
From: Eric Peters
Subject: Great Plotting Program!
To: INFO-CPM@mit-mc, INFO-MICRO@mit-mc, INFO-PC@mit-mc
Cc: PETERS@mit-mc, MIT-SPEECH.LARSON@mit-mc
I must share with the net my enthusiasm for an
item of commercial software that I bought
recently.
Lark Software's PLOTTER program produces amazingly
good charts and graphs [line diagrams, scatterplots,
mixed line and scatter, bar graphs, pie charts] on
a large number of dot-matrix printers, including
Anadex, BMC, Centronics 739 C.Itoh Prowriters,
Epsons, GE 3000 series, IBM with graftrx, IDS,
Mannesman Talley 160/180. NEC 8023, Okidata,
Panasonic KX 1901, Star Gemini10x,15x.
Versions available for CP/M 80 and 86, PC DOS and
MS DOS. The order blank lists every format I ever heard
of, plus!
The program is extremely user friendly. Menu driven
questions guide you in designing your chart/graph.
Of course, to keep the menu from being ridiculously long, the
options are somewhat limited. But the author has included
quite a bit of background data in separate sections that -- if
you study it -- will let you change to suit your own tastes
virtually everything that the menu-driven program sets up.
The cost is reasonable, $99 for all types of graphs.
One can buy the line chart pkg and the BAR & PIE charts separately,
at $69 each, but that is pointless -- you'd surely
want them all for the $20 difference.
Address: LARK Software, 7 Cedars Rd, Caldwell NJ 07986,
phone [201]226-7552.
An enterprising student with one of those printers might
make good money doing charts for other students, and
even faculty -- the output is plenty good enough for
publication.
I have started to dress up my reports with charts that
I could previously only dream about. My guess is that
this program is going to be a classic.
Eric Peters
Is the writer merely a consumer of the product, or does he have another connection with the company? Does he have affiliations with MIT [mentioned often in the message header]? If so, as a student, worker, faculty member?
Here's an example of what we believe is an appropriate labeling of affiliation:
Received: from brl-tgr.arpa by rand-unix.ARPA; Thu, 4 Oct 84 03:43:14 pdt
Received: from brl-vgr.arpa by BRL-TGR.ARPA id ab06286; 4 Oct 84 6:04 EDT
Received: from sri-unix.arpa by BRL-VGR.ARPA id a006563; 4 Oct 84 6:02 EDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by Sri-Unix.uucp with rs232; 4 Oct 84 2:43-PDT
Date: 2 Oct 84 0:18:18-PDT [Tue]
To: info-unix@BRL-VGR
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!foros1!rhino!
Subject: Re: Is System V going down the tube?
Article-I.D.: rhino.213
In-Reply-To: Article
An interesting question regarding the statistics Jim Averill quoted
[vis. Xenix 77%
Version 7 20%
System III 3% [System V must be 0%]]
is, to what do these statistics pertain? Is this a measure of
the development genesis of the systems, of the licensing path
taken by the various manufacturers, or what?
One would expect that several thousand [yes, THOUSAND] Un*x
installations would show up SOMEWHERE in the above figures, yes?
And yet, Fortune Systems ["For:Pro"] is nowhere listed. UNLESS,
of course, we talk about the licensing agreements, in which case
For:Pro is included in the Xenix figure.
Note that For:Pro is NOT a Xenix re-port. Neither is For:Pro
Xenix based. For financial reasons, though, Fortune's LICENSE is
based on the Xenix license.
As far as the technical port is concerned, For:Pro is V7 based,
with many of the 4.1 commands included. Fortune has made many
kernel modifications, including several to the scheduler, new I/O
drivers, and a mechanism for automatically determining the device
controllers attached to the system and accessing the appropriate
device drivers dynamically.
[Note that these statements are NOT official Fortune positions,
merely observations based on my experiences.]
--
Peter Larkin Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California
...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!larkin
Be selective in broadcasts for information
The real power of this exciting new medium can be glimpsed in its broadcast capability. Do you need the answer to a question: How many megabytes does the new IBM cartridge tape cassette hold? Does the Sperry PC run Lotus 1-2-3 without modification? No need to rummage around libraries looking in books. The answer is at your fingertips: Broadcast a message to "networkland" [or within it, to some special interest group in that topic of interest] and replies will come flowing in at the speed of light — or at least the speed of electricity in copper. It's fun, it's fast, and anyone can play.
The only problem is that the medium will sink under the weight of all these messages. If through your membership in network special interest groups you start getting 100, 200, or more messages a day, you will either drop some or all of the groups, or else scan and quickly discard many of the messages—often from their subject lines alone. With the current state of video display technology, you simply cannot scan 100 electronic messages as quickly as you can 100 pieces of printed mail, because there aren't as many clues [bulk rate postage, obvious form letter, colored headlines leaping out at you telling the essence of the message in 20 words or less]. So you stop paying a lot of attention, even when you might have been the person that could have supplied the best answer to someone's question. And then no one's paying much attention when you ask, either.
The solution is clear: Use the power, and revel in it, but use it with discretion. In particular, before you broadcast all the things you want to know about a subject to the interest group on the subject area you've just joined, take the time to scan the message archives of the group to see if the questions have been asked and answered dozens of times before. This may be obvious advice, but we see counterexamples literally weekly.
Do not insult or criticize third parties without giving them a chance to respond
If you think the hard disk or expansion board made by XYZ Corporation is faulty, you perform a service by telling a relevant interest group about it. But you might also be wrong. You might be using it incorrectly, or not have the latest version, or it might have been dropped off the loading dock on its way to you, and not be representative.
If you are privileged to have access to an electronic mail medium, or electronic bulletin board, remember that the rest of the world did not necessarily join when you did. If you've got something negative to say about someone or something, say it if you feel it's appropriate, but copy the person or company at the same time, either electronically or by sending a hardcopy via U.S. mail. If, perchance, you get a response that shows you were wrong in some fact, or that you flamed inappropriately, you owe it to your recipients and the possibly aggrieved party to keep your respondents informed.
We've seen a lot of critiques and criticism on the nets, much of it deserved. But it's also much easier to be a critic than a builder. The labors of dozens of people trying to build a company or product out of only ideas and hard work can be destroyed by casual critiques written in a moment of anger [like when you lost three days' work when the disk crashed], when the criticism might have been inappropriate or answered effectively. It is especially sad when the company doesn't even know what the rumor mill is saying about them, so that they can't respond.
Receiving and Responding to Messages
Receiving messages is easier than sending them. If you want, you can just be a passing observer of the scene. Responding to messages is usually easy, as most systems provide a "reply" function that automatically creates the appropriate header for the response. In addition to the guidelines mentioned here, note that all "sending" guidelines apply while responding to a message.
One rule that we don't provide is: When is it rude not to respond to a message? For example, if you receive the message, "The meeting has been postponed 'til 2pm," should you make the sender aware that you've received it on time? It probably depends too much on local context, such as whether the message system provides an automatic "receipt" message to the sender when you access a message.
If you receive a message intended for another person, don't just ignore it
It's not good citizenship to ignore a message, or hit the "delete" key. The sender will assume the intended recipient got it, and wonder why he or she didn't get a reply. The intended recipient[s] won't know something they were intended to know. And so on.
If you know from the content of the message [of course you read it, even though you knew after two sentences it was missent] who the correct recipient is, you could forward it with a cover note explaining the error. If you're not sure, use your system's "reply" capability to notify the sender, preferably attaching the errant message to your response.
Avoid responding while emotional
See the following guidelines, which explain why it might be inappropriate to respond in an emotional state of mind. See the section "The Phenomenon of Flaming," below, regarding how to respond when you decide to.
If a message generates emotions, look again
One of the most surprising things about electronic mail is the ease with which misinterpretations arise. People are used to reading "body language," voice intonation, and numerous other cues when interpreting messages delivered in conversation, or even on the telephone. Those cues are missing in electronic mail, and what was meant as a casual comment, or an attempt at humor or irony, is misinterpreted. Even small misinterpretations have a tendency to mushroom. Messages between two correspondents may become more stilted and formal, until what started as a casual exchange of messages becomes a set of diplomatic communiques.
So it is easy to become angered at something in a message ["Boy, that was a dumb thing to say." "How could anyone be so silly."].
We've found that the reader should pause and reread the message. What at first glance was offensive can often be interpreted, on rereading, as merely a poor choice of words in a hasty message — words that might have been casually used, then forgotten, in a face-to-face conversation, but that linger on the printed page [or phosphor screen]. It might help to consider the message as a written verbal communication, rather than real writing.
It also helps to consider the source. The sender might be a graduate student [or high school student] hacking away on some remote system, using a colloquial way of expressing him- or herself that is customary in that person's peer group, but that is inappropriate in the recipient's circle of communicants.
As we've mentioned, the most likely explanation is that an attempt at humor or irony went awry. Try to interpret the message that way before firing off your own cynical reply, thereby escalating the process to higher levels of misinterpretation. There is danger that your response can cause a chain reaction of emotional responses, or "flaming," that is very counterproductive.
Assume the honesty and competence of the sender
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't a bad rule of thumb, especially when they're 3000 miles and three time zones away. [This rule may seem too obvious to mention, but we have observed numerous examples of replies to messages that appear to assume the original sender is an idiot, whereas the recipient might well have misunderstood the context or intent of the message.]
Try to separate opinion from non-opinion while reading a message, so you can respond appropriately
The sender, of course, should have labeled opinion as such. In case he hasn't, it is worthwhile trying to unravel opinion from fact, since your reply will benefit from making the distinction.
Consider whom you should respond to
If the message was sent to a distribution list, do you really want your answer to go out to that same list? Wouldn't it keep the electronic clutter down to respond only to the sender, even if that means editing out the name of the distribution list in the "Cc:" field your text editor so helpfully supplied?
There's a nice compromise: Send an answer only to the sender, with the P.S.: "If you think this response merits wider distribution, feel free to do so." That way, the original sender can batch together responses received, and provide a coherent update to the issue [giving you credit, of course, for your insightful contribution to the debate].
Consider alternative media
Can you walk down the hall, or pick up the phone, and respond better? Was there something in the original message that needs clarification, so that a real conversation might well cut through to the heart of the issue, rather than starting a string of messages and responses?
Recall our earlier caution that a string of messages and responses tends to become brittle and may lead to misunderstandings in a way that personal conversations do not — a fertile field for behavioral analysis. The lack of additional cues, in our experience, almost invariably leads to misinterpretation, especially between parties who do not know each other very well. So consider reaching out and really touching someone.
Avoid irrelevancies
Respond to opinion with contradictory evidence, or facts that are relevant. The medium seems to have a "chatty" nature, since it is harder to write succinctly than to ramble on. But given the limited phosphor window we have onto this electronic universe, succinctness and relevance become prized attributes. The message that makes its point and fits on one screen does its job best, and you will be well regarded.
Acting as Coordinator/Leader of an Interest Group
We've mentioned the growing role of special interest groups in electronic mail networks. They perform several very useful functions: [1] focus on one subject matter, so that there is continuity and coherence to the dialog; [2] bring together diverse individuals or institutions interested in a common subject matter; [3] provide a repository of expertise in an area that can occasionally be tapped by others.
The activity and diversity of these groups are illustrated by a list of special interest groups within the USENET community [as of November 1984]. [The first 20 groups are listed here; a complete list is given in the Appendix.]
net.abortion All sorts of discussions on abortion.
net.ai Artificial intelligence discussions.
net.analog Analog design developments, ideas,
and components.
net.announce Moderated, general announcements
of interest to all.
net.announce.newusers Moderated, explanatory postings
for new users.
net.arch Computer architecture.
net.astro Astronomy discussions and information.
net.astro.expert Discussion by experts in astronomy.
net.audio High fidelity audio.
net.auto Automobiles, automotive products and
laws.
net.aviation Aviation rules, means, and methods.
net.bicycle Bicycles, related products and laws.
net.bio Biology and related sciences.
net.books Books of all genres, shapes, and sizes.
net.bugs General bug reports and fixes.
net.bugs.2bsd Reports of UNIX version 2BSD related
bugs.
net.bugs.4bsd Reports of UNIX version 4BSD related
bugs.
net.bugs.usg Reports of USG [System III, V, etc.]
bugs.
net.bugs.uucp Reports of UUCP related bugs.
net.bugs.v7 Reports of UNIX V7 related bugs.
The success of these groups is often highly correlated with there being a coordinator or leader who takes responsibility for group communications. It's not a simple or easy job, but it is a valuable service. [For example, the ARPAnet IBM-PC interest group now has three different editors, on a rotating basis, to handle the volume of messages.]
We've listed below some key guidelines for the performance of this coordinator/leader job. It's a role that will be even more commonplace and important as the volume of electronic communication increases.
Perform relevant groupings
It is helpful to readers when messages received on a common topic from diverse sources are grouped together in a "packet" message. Readers may well detect common threads or issues that would otherwise have remained obscure. Also, the packet can be filed by subject matter as one unit, not many.
Use uniform packaging
If some part of the message header of messages routed within an interest group have some key word or phrase in common, these messages can be filtered out and organized by recipients using "scan" and "file" functions common in many message systems. Perhaps this can be as simple as the "To:" line containing the name of the interest group.
Exercise reasonable editorship
Perhaps a world without censorship would be nice, but we're not there yet. Messages that are not relevant should be excluded, as should ones that are sufficiently tasteless to be offensive. But it is important that opinions [preferably labeled as such] be given a hearing.
There also tends to be much redundancy of messages and questions in these interest groups. New people are joining all the time, and asking questions that have been answered before. The group coordinator provides a very useful function by excluding these messages from continued widespread distribution, and pointing the sender [individually] to the group archives for the answer. If it is a topic that appears to be of extreme continuing interest, periodic broadcast messages can alert new participants to the relevant archives.
Timeliness is important
This medium permits rapid communication, and that rapidity should be retained. The coordinator should not sit on collections of messages too long ["I'll just wait until I've got six messages to send as a group on this topic…"]. Electronic dialogs that retain their momentum depend on this immediacy. In most cases, a 48- to 72-hour holding function for editing and grouping purposes should not be exceeded.
The Phenomenon of "Flaming"
Perhaps the attribute of electronic mail systems that most distinguishes them from other forms of communication is their propensity to evoke emotion in the recipient — very likely because of misinterpretation of some portion of the form or content of the message — and the likelihood that the recipient will then fire off a response that exacerbates the situation.
We have touched upon various possible causes for this phenomenon. They are:
- It is difficult to tell the level of formality of a message from its appearance; to a considerable degree, they all look the same. The cues are more subtle than telling the difference between a scrawled note and a formal memorandum.
- Partly because of the lack of cues to the level of formality, because of the nature of writing, and because most participants are not professional writers, attempts at humor, irony, sarcasm, and wit are often misinterpreted.
- Immediate feedback from body language, interruptions, or other cues we have developed as a society to aid the intercommunication process is lacking in this medium.
- Normally in written communications, time intervenes to blunt the edge of a response, or to allow reconsideration. A written letter that is received may lie on the desk several days or weeks before it is responded to. In contrast, the ease of creating an immediate "reply" to an electronic message [often easiest to do immediately upon viewing the message] biases the EM user to respond immediately, "off the top of his head."
- Telephone calls and personal conversations that have involved hasty or ill-chosen words fade with time. Electronic messages containing similar infelicities have a permanence to them: They sit around in electronic inboxes, or are printed out and remain tangible, and can even be printed in a manner [inkjet, laser, or typesetting] that gives them an aura of formality and importance that was never intended.
All these factors taken together create a novel situation that must be taken into account repeatedly in using electronic mail systems.
One additional factor often mentioned is anonymity. It would appear that persons sending electronic mail to others over a network who are not known in person might be freer in communicating feelings than to friends or associates. If no one knows who "fritz at cmu-ca" is, fritz can say almost anything. In fact, we have not observed significant difference in "flaming" between remote correspondents who don't know each other personally, compared with communication among people who know each other. The anonymity factor does not appear to be an important one.
What can be done to minimize the problems of escalating emotions that arise? A number of the guidelines and suggestions we have listed earlier are relevant to this issue. To summarize:
- A phenomenon called "flaming" has appeared on electronic mail networks, in which messages are sent having a deliberate emotional content, but usually carefully labeled as such. Sometimes just the annotation "Flame! Flame!" alerts the reader to the fact that the writer knows he or she is being emotional. The intent is that the reader should take that into account and not assume this is a carefully reasoned statement [although it might be; the two are not mutually exclusive].
- Resist the temptation to fire off a response. Go ahead and write the response, but file it away instead, and wait 24 hours. Reconsider the response later, in the light of a new day [and perhaps a rereading and reinterpretation of the original message].
- Use alternative media to break the cycle of message-and-response. A telephone call or personal conversation can do wonders, when body language, eye contact, and all the other cues we've developed can take effect. This is especially important if electronic communications seem to be becoming more formal and stilted than seems natural.
Much of the problem seems to stem from the paucity of cues that electronic mail affords its readers. Perhaps the technology that spawned electronic mail will go further to help with the misunderstandings it creates. One can imagine message systems in which the boldness of the characters displayed is a function of the force with which the keys are hit; in which the speed at which it is typed is reflected in the character spacing [or color, or size, etc.]. Or providing a set of standard forms to be selected, ranging from "Note from the desk of…" to "Corporate Memorandum" to give additional cues to the level of formality intended. Perhaps the most informal messages will be displayed in the handwriting of the sender [even though keyboarded for convenience] as an additional cue to its informality. More certainly [because the systems are in prototype form already] there will be systems in which the cold green [or amber, or whatever] characters will be accompanied by voice annotations, so that the humanity and state of the sender will be retained and "read" by the recipient.
In the meantime, caution, awareness, and an evolving ethics and etiquette of electronic communication will certainly help.
V. In Conclusion
Electronic mail and messaging systems, and electronic bulletin boards, are an incredibly powerful and effective means of communication. Because of this, they will grow and become one of the primary means of communication for most of us.
These media are quite different from any other means of communication. Many of the old rules do not apply.
This discussion does not supply a new set of rules for this new medium. Electronic mail is in its infancy, as is our understanding of it. We have collected some guidelines that seem to point in proper directions, and have personally used them in our own use of the medium. Many of them appear to be common sense in a new guise, but they are included because we've seen them violated in practice too often to ignore. These guidelines are suggestions, intended to generate reflection and stimulate discussion.
With the new power of electronic mail comes the need for responsibility in using that power. We can all enjoy the power and benefit from it if we find new forms of behavior — even etiquette — that are appropriate. The alternative is a rising tide of irrelevant messages and electronic junk mail that will turn off most thoughtful users. By evolving a set of guidelines such as those presented here, we can all use the incredible power of the medium and benefit from it.
Appendix: Network Interest Groups
This list of interest groups was contained in a message broadcast on November 15, 1984 by Gene Spafford, School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia Tech. There are three basic subcategories of netwide newsgroups; they are prefaced by the codes net, fa, and mod. Net consists of USENET bulletin board newsgroups that are circulated around the entire net. Fa is a set of groups that are gatewayed to USENET from the ARPAnet. The fa groups consist mainly of digests, though there are some bulletin boards. Mod groups are moderated. They can only be posted by mailing to the group moderator. UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories. DEC is a trademark of the Digital Equipment Corporation. VAX is a trademark of the Digital Equipment Corporation. Ada is a trademark of the Ada Joint Program Office of the U.S. Department of Defense.
Newsgroup Description
net.abortion All sorts of discussions on abortion.
net.ai Artificial intelligence discussions.
net.analog Analog design developments, ideas, and
components.
net.announce Moderated, general announcements of
interest to all.
net.announce.newusers Moderated, explanatory postings for new
users.
net.arch Computer architecture.
net.astro Astronomy discussions and information.
net.astro.expert Discussion by experts in astronomy.
net.audio High fidelity audio.
net.auto Automobiles, automotive products and laws.
net.aviation Aviation rules, means, and methods.
net.bicycle Bicycles, related products and laws.
net.bio Biology and related sciences.
net.books Books of all genres, shapes, and sizes.
net.bugs General bug reports and fixes.
net.bugs.2bsd Reports of UNIX version 2BSD related bugs.
net.bugs.4bsd Reports of UNIX version 4BSD related bugs.
net.bugs.usg Reports of USG [System III, V, etc.] bugs.
net.bugs.uucp Reports of UUCP related bugs.
net.bugs.v7 Reports of UNIX V7 related bugs.
net.chess Chess and computer chess.
net.cog-eng Cognitive engineering.
net.college College, college activities, campus life, etc.
net.columbia The space shuttle and the STS program.
net.comics The funnies, old and new.
net.consumers Consumer interests, product reviews, etc.
net.cooks Food, cooking, cookbooks, and recipes.
net.crypt Different methods of data en/decryption.
net.cse Computer science education.
net.cycle Motorcycles and related products and laws.
net.dcom Data communications hardware and software.
net.decus DEC Users' Society newsgroup.
net.emacs EMACS editors of different flavors.
net.eunice The SRI Eunice system.
net.flame For flaming on any topic.
net.followup Followups to articles in net.general.
net.games Games and computer games.
net.games.emp Discussion and hints about Empire.
net.games.frp Discussion about Fantasy Role Playing games.
net.games.go Discussion about Go.
net.games.pbm Discussion about Play by Mail games.
net.games.rogue Discussion and hints about Rogue.
net.games.trivia Discussion about trivia.
net.games.video Discussion about video games.
net.garden Gardening, methods and results.
net.general *Important* and timely announcements of interest
to all. [Note the description of net.misc.]
net.graphics Computer graphics, art, and animation.
net.ham-radio Amateur Radio practices, contests, events, rules.
net.info-terms All sorts of terminals.
net.invest Investments and the handling of money.
net.jobs Job announcements, requests, etc.
net.jokes Jokes and the like. May be somewhat offensive.
net.jokes.d Discussions on the content of net.jokes articles.
net.kids Children, their behavior and activities.
net.lan Local area network hardware and software.
net.lang Different computer languages.
net.lang.ada Discussion about Ada.
net.lang.apl Discussion about APL.
net.lang.c Discussion about C.
net.lang.f77 Discussion about FORTRAN.
net.lang.forth Discussion about Forth.
net.lang.lisp Discussion about LISP.
net.lang.mod2 Discussion about Modula-2.
net.lang.pascal Discussion about Pascal.
net.lang.prolog Discussion about PROLOG.
net.lang.st80 Discussion about Smalltalk 80.
net.legal Legalities and the ethics of law.
net.lsi Large scale integrated circuits.
net.mag Magazine summaries, tables of contents, etc.
net.mail Proposed new mail/network standards.
net.mail.headers Gatewayed from the ARPA header-people list.
net.mail.msggroup Gatewayed from the ARPA MsgGroup list.
net.math Mathematical discussions and puzzles.
net.math.stat Statistics discussion.
net.math.symbolic Symbolic algebra discussion.
net.med Medicine and its related products and regulations.
net.micro Micro computers of all kinds.
net.micro.16k National Semiconductor 32000 series chips.
net.micro.432 Discussion about Intel 432's.
net.micro.6809 Discussion about 6809's.
net.micro.68k Discussion about 68k's.
net.micro.apple Discussion about Apples.
net.micro.atari Discussion about Ataris.
net.micro.cbm Discussion about Commodores.
net.micro.cpm Discussion about the CP/M operating system.
net.micro.hp Discussion about Hewlett/Packards.
net.micro.mac Material about the Apple MacIntosh and Lisa.
net.micro.pc Discussion about IBM personal computers.
net.micro.ti Discussion about Texas Instruments.
net.micro.trs-80 Discussion about TRS-80's.
net.micro.zx Discussion about zx's.
net.misc Various discussions too short lived for other
groups. Also items of a general nature not
important enough for net.general or
net.announce.
net.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality.
net.movies Reviews and discussions of movies.
net.movies.sw Discussions about the Star Wars saga[s].
net.music Music lovers' group.
net.music.classical Discussion about classical music.
net.net-people Announcements, requests, etc. about people on
the net.
net.news Discussions of USENET itself.
net.news.adm Comments directed to news administrators.
net.news.b Discussion about B news software.
net.news.config Postings of system down times and interruptions.
net.news.group Discussions and lists of newsgroups.
net.news.map Postings of maps.
net.news.newsite Postings of new site announcements.
net.news.sa Comments directed to system administrators.
net.nlang Natural languages, cultures, heritages, etc.
net.nlang.celts Group about Celtics.
net.nlang.greek Group about Greeks.
net.notes Notesfile software from the University of Illinois.
net.origins Evolution versus creationism [sometimes hot!].
net.periphs Peripheral devices.
net.pets Pets, pet care, and household animals in general.
net.philosophy Philosophical discussions.
net.physics Physical laws, properties, etc.
net.poems For the posting of poems.
net.politics Political discussions. Could get hot.
net.puzzle Puzzles, problems, and quizzes.
net.railroad Real and model train fans' newsgroup.
net.rec Recreational/participant sports.
net.rec.birds Hobbyists interested in bird watching.
net.rec.boat Hobbyists interested in boating.
net.rec.bridge Hobbyists interested in bridge.
net.rec.coins Hobbyists interested in coin collecting.
net.rec.disc Hobbyists interested in disc activities.
net.rec.nude Hobbyists interested in naturalist/nudist
activities.
net.rec.photo Hobbyists interested in photography.
net.rec.scuba Hobbyists interested in SCUBA diving.
net.rec.ski Hobbyists interested in skiing.
net.rec.skydive Hobbyists interested in skydiving.
net.rec.wood Hobbyists interested in woodworking.
net.religion Religious, ethical, and moral implications of
actions.
net.religion.jewish Group about Judaism.
net.research Research and computer research.
net.roots Genealogical matters.
net.rumor For the posting of rumors.
net.sci General purpose scientific discussions.
net.sf-lovers Science fiction lovers' newsgroup.
net.singles Newsgroup for single people, their activities, etc.
net.social Like net.singles, but for everyone.
net.sources For the posting of software packages and
documentation [cf. net.wanted.sources].
net.sources.bugs For bug fixes and features discussion
pertaining to items in net.sources.
net.space Space, space programs, space related research, etc.
net.sport Spectator sports.
net.sport.baseball Discussion about baseball.
net.sport.football Discussion about football.
net.sport.hockey Discussion about hockey.
net.sport.hoops Discussion about basketball.
net.startrek Star Trek, the TV show and the movies.
net.std All sorts of standards [e.g., ANSI, IEEE].
net.suicide Suicide, laws, ethics, and its causes and effects.
net.taxes Tax laws and advice.
net.test For testing of network software. Very boring.
net.text Text processing.
net.travel Traveling all over the world.
net.tv The boob tube, its history, and past and current
shows.
net.tv.drwho Discussion about Dr. Who.
net.tv.soaps Postings about soap operas.
net.unix UNIX neophytes group.
net.unix-wizards Discussions, bug reports, and fixes on and for
UNIX. Not for the weak of heart.
net.usenix USENIX Association events and announcements.
net.usoft Universal [public domain] software packages.
net.veg Vegetarians.
net.video Video and video components.
net.wanted Requests for things that are needed.
net.wanted.sources Requests for software, termcap entries, etc.
net.wines Wines and spirits.
net.wobegon "The Prairie Home Companion" radio show.
net.women Women's rights, discrimination, etc.
net.women.only Postings by women only [read by all].
net.works Assorted workstations.
net.works.apollo Discussion about Apollo workstations.
fa.arms-d Arms discussion digest.
fa.arpa-bboard ARPAnet bulletin board.
fa.bitgraph The BBN bitgraph terminal.
fa.digest-p Digest-people digest.
fa.editor-p Editor-people digest.
fa.energy Energy programs, conservation, etc.
fa.human-nets Computer aided communications digest.
fa.info-mac Apple MacIntosh micros.
fa.info-terms All sorts of terminals.
fa.info-vax DEC's VAX line of computers.
fa.info-vlsi Very large scale integrated circuits.
fa.laser-lovers Laser printers, hardware and software.
fa.poli-sci Politics and/versus science.
fa.railroad Real and model train fans' newsgroup.
fa.tcp-ip TCP and IP network protocols.
fa.telecom Telecommunications digest.
fa.teletext Teletext digest.
mod.map Announcements and software concerning maps and
routing.
mod.map.news Maps of the USENET network of news sites.
mod.map.uucp Maps from the UUCP mapping project.
mod.movies Moderated reviews and discussion of movies.
mod.motss Moderated newsgroup on gay issues and topics.
mod.music Moderated reviews and discussion of things musical.
mod.newslists Postings of news-related statistics and lists.
mod.singles Moderated version of net.singles.
mod.sources Moderated postings of public domain sources.
mod.test Testing of moderated newsgroups--no moderator.
mod.unix Moderated discussion of UNIX features and bugs.
mod.std Moderated discussion about various standards.
mod.std.c Discussion about C language standards.
mod.std.mumps Discussion about standards for MUMPS.
Glossary
ARPAnetAn electronic network linking computer facilities throughout the United States, and selected installations in other countries. Used primarily by research institutions performing work for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] and related military institutions.BroadcastSending a message to a group of recipients at once; often this is facilitated by using a named distribution list.Electronic Bulletin Board A central repository of messages [within a computer system] on which messages can be posted, scanned, replied to, and removed.EMElectronic Mail [or Electronic Message] system. It is distinguished from an Electronic Bulletin Board in that messages can be addressed to one or more individual recipients.FlamingExpressing emotion in an electronic message. The emotion is often explicitly labeled as such.Special Interest GroupA group of respondents within an electronic mail system that limit communications within the group to a particular subject matter. It is usually preferable to have a leader or coordinator of the group to perform editing, filtering, collection, and administrative functions [such as maintaining a message archive] for the group.UNIX[6]A popular operating system developed at Bell Laboratories in the early 1970s, available on many minicomputers and microcomputers.USENETA loose but effective informal association of computer users forming a network for distributing electronic messages. Messages are broadcast as general news items, not point-to-point. It relies heavily on dial-up telephone lines and the UUCP protocol.UUCPUNIX-to-UNIX Communication Protocol. A standardized means of sending and receiving information between computers running the UNIX operating system, often using standard telephone lines and modems.Related Products
Table of Contents
Chapter One
An Example
Chapter Two
What This Report Is About
Chapter Three
Electronic Mail Is a Fundamentally New Medium
Chapter Four
Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail
Chapter Five
In Conclusion
This research in the public interest was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and in part by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors and the fees earned on client-funded research.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
This document and trademark[s] contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
Citation
Format:- Chicago Manual of Style
- RAND Corporation Style Manual
Shapiro, Norman and Robert H. Anderson, Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1985. //www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html. Also available in print form.
Shapiro, Norman and Robert H. Anderson, Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail, RAND Corporation, R-3283-NSF/RC, 1985. As of November 12, 2022: //www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html
- Save to My RAND
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn