| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 199.1 | aaarrrrggghhh! | SEDJAR::THIBAULT | Swimmers Do It Wetter | Tue Feb 03 1987 13:10 | 5 |
| You got one of those, too huh? I personally hate any mail that has
more than one page of headers on it. I usually delete them before
I even get to the message.
Bahama Mama
|
| 199.2 | Chain letters should be abolished | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Tue Feb 03 1987 17:03 | 3 |
| I deleted a chain letter that was posted here. Please don't post
chain letters to ANY conference. Thanks.
Steve
|
| 199.4 | Return to sender | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Tue Feb 03 1987 18:32 | 16 |
| Re: .3
Why do you think it's necessary to show chain letters to
everyone? What I do when I get one is to send it back to the
person who sent it to me (and maybe, if I'm feeling punchy,
everyone backwards in the chain who sent it), along with a note
quoting the explicit DEC policy that forbids chain letters and
a further request that they not send any to me again. If enough
people did this, especially returning the letter to all those
backwards on the chain, I bet chain letters would stop quickly.
There is no "Network Knowledge" in chain letters - just trash.
There's a discussion of chain letters in HUMAN::DIGITAL as of today.
Steve
|
| 199.6 | SERIOUS POLICIES SHOULD BE BETTER CIRCULATED | VAXWRK::RACEL | | Tue Feb 03 1987 21:46 | 26 |
| I don't much care for Chain Letters either. Way back in the days
when letters came on paper, I used to just throw them away. However,
one came floating through my office via 'MAIL' and a few people
received them and either forwarded or deleted them. Sure, they
can be a drag, but so can any other mail message that someone sends
to me that I have to read through about 10 pages of forwarding
addresses to finally get to the message.
Well, most of my group (about 3/4) has been with the company for
less than a year. I'm not going to argue as to whether forwarding
the chain letter is right or wrong. However, about 24 hours after
they went around, someone told us that it was againt a DEC policy
to do this, and that anyone whose name was on one was apt to be
fired.
Talk about scared, young kids (yup - most of these guys are 25 yrs
old or less). So... it's wrong... but are they really going to
fire someone for it? I have a hard time believing that these
naive people who put in a good 40 or more hours a week, don't abuse
their privleges, and probably average less than an hour per week
using NOTES deserve to be fired just because they forwarded a message
and didn't know about a policy.
Where is that policy written anyway? How many of these do I have
to read to make sure I don't do something innocent that is going
to get me fired?
|
| 199.7 | New policy | QUARK::LIONEL | Three rights make a left | Tue Feb 03 1987 22:33 | 20 |
| This new policy has circulated quite widely within the noting
community. I have posted a copy in note 1.10 for permanent reference.
However, I will point out that the policy does not say that
employees will be fired for writing chain letters; rather it says
that misuse of DEC's systems can be cause for corrective action
at your manager's discretion.
The particular text that starts "Examples of misuse could be..."
should not (we hope) be interpreted as "if you do any of these
things you're automatically guilty of misuse". Rather, they
are suggestions of what you should be careful of. In particular,
the text about "communicating matters of private conviction or
philosophy" is subject to wide interpretation.
I think I'd like to direct discussion of this policy to the
HUMAN::DIGITAL conference. (Press KP7 or SELECT to add it to
your notebook.) Note 111 should make good reading.
Steve
|
| 199.9 | Thanks Steve | VAXWRK::RACEL | | Wed Feb 04 1987 18:54 | 7 |
| Steve,
Thanks for posting that policy. In my 25 months at DEC, I either
have never seen it, or have seen it and specifics never sunk in
before.
Peggy
|
| 199.10 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Wed Feb 04 1987 20:15 | 8 |
| The policy was JUST approved within the past month, though there
were similar policies in the past. Indeed, these don't get widespread
attention, but this one sure has, mainly because some interpret
it as requiring the closing of most employee interest conferences
(including this one). Luckily, "those in charge" don't appear to
see it that way (there is a good communications channel between
the IDECUS NOTES DIG and Personnel).
Steve
|