Print

Print


I am also strongly against restricting anonymous or pseudonymous users. It
is true that sometimes anonymity brings trolls, but it is also true that
anonymity allows for people to bring issues to the table without worrying
about who is lurking and who in their organization might retaliate.

Additionally, my understanding is that Kate did not have a problem with
Sunni because Sunni was anonymous on the listserv - Kate had a problem with
Sunni because Sunni was not providing enough information when soliciting
*other people's* personal stories and data while being on the listserv
pseudonymously, which is ethically questionable. (Kate, please feel free to
correct me.) Offering one's own opinion anonymously - no problem. Asking
for other stories while anonymous - problematic.

All told, I am a fan of libraries' stance of protecting the privacy of
patrons. I consider myself to be a patron of this listserv under the guise
of multi-library engagement. Because there is no way to discern who's
listening/reading here, I vote we protect the privacy of our members and
support anonymous participation, but not anonymous solicitation.

Best regards,
Risa Wolf

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems like
> there is a good technical reason for doing so.  To disallow the
> LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some participant's mail from
> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" status by the
> receiving mail agent).
>
> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good reasons to use
> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread).  The use of
> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that signal into
> account as they read and consider the content of the message.  I wouldn't
> want to see aliases banned from the list.  I think it is also a health
> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever possible so
> community members get to know each other.
>
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Murray
> Open Source Community Advocate
> Index Data, LLC
> On Jul 12, 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>,
> wrote:
> > With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called DMARC, it is
> possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have your email
> address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature. [0] Yes,
> direct replies to an address like
> [log in to unmask] do make it back to the
> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very difficult
> to know to whom one is replying.
> >
> > I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable. One
> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their affiliation,
> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, and 2)
> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message you can
> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my address is
> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was a full
> signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are difficult to
> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM <
> [log in to unmask]> with no signature I think
> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a
> dog." [1]
> >
> > [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp
> > [1] dog -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
> >
>


-- 

Risa Wolf

Senior Product Manager, E-Reading

Digital


The New York Public Library

445 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016

212-621-0543

nypl.org