
Netiquette (1995) - heretoo
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
======
INTPenis
As a curious teenager in the late 90s I once started discovering nmap and
subnet masks by scanning everything in my own subnet from my home Telia
connection that was in my mothers name.

Shortly after a thick envelope came in the mail and I was very fortunate to
catch it before my mother because in it was a stern warning from someone at
Telia to stop scanning their equipment and several printed pages of this
document on netiquette.

I didn't read it all so I can't be sure it was that exact Rfc, and I'm pretty
sure it was in Swedish, but the sheer volume of pages makes me think it was
either this rfc translated or something very similar that Telia kept on hand.

Either way, I never shat where I slept again and I read a lot about stealth
scanning techniques and proxying after that. ☺

------
ColinWright

        Be brief without being overly terse.  When replying to a message,
        include enough original material to be understood but no more. It
        is extremely bad form to simply reply to a message by including
        all the previous message: edit out all the irrelevant material.
    

This is made literally impossible by some email clients and some webmail
systems. Some interfaces insist on only allow "top-posting" replies, putting
your new text at the top, and quoting the previous email in its entirety. It
drives me nuts.

I always quote the portion to which I'm replying, and add my reply below that,
and recently a reply came back saying - "I like the way you reply, I'm going
to reply in the same style!"

Now I can quote an RFC.

~~~
mcv
GMail fucked up email for me.

For a long, I seemed to be the last person in my area to stick to proper
quoting, but I'm afraid I've slipped over the past few years. I think I top-
quote more often than not, these days. GMail is partially to blame for that.

~~~
sp332
Gmail made top-quoting unnecessary with the conversation view. You can just
click and see the entire conversation above the message you're reading. I'm
not sure why they default to putting new text at the top and then display it
underneath!

~~~
ColinWright
I don't want the entire conversation, I only want the bit that's necessary to
understand the reply. Even when I invert the email to put things in
chronological order I still need to sieve through laboriously to find the
relevant parts. Incredible waste of time.

------
zdw
Middle of page 7:

    
    
          If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
          summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
          enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
          sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
          Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
          postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
          response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
          helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!
    

Thus, bottom posting is correct, full-quote top posting is an abomination.
Anyone who argues otherwise is breaking the rules.

~~~
buugs
This is almost 20 years old technology has changed a lot since then.

Email clients hide quotes by default and also quote by default.

People don't treat email the same (who has the time to summarize/edit the
quote anymore).

Gmail has made top posting the default which means most users will top quote.

Threading is a bit better.

Feel free to continue bottom posting but remember not to quote the whole damn
thing and remember to keep the quote short enough that I hopefully don't have
to scroll down to see what you added. I personally find top posting easier to
follow with modern threading.

~~~
e12e
> Email clients hide quotes by default and also quote by default.

Which clients?

> Gmail has made top posting the default which means most users will top >
> quote.

Outlook already did this. At least with Outlook, the UI is broken, so people
understand what you mean when you complain. Gmail being smart, people have a
hard time grasping what you mean when you try to get them to quote "smart".
And both approaches are wrong (IMNHO).

> Feel free to continue bottom posting but remember not to quote the > whole
> damn thing and remember to keep the quote short enough that I > hopefully
> don't have to scroll down to see what you added. I > personally find top
> posting easier to follow with modern threading.

Why would you have to scroll when "[e]mail clients hide quotes by default" ?

Anyway, lets not continue this into a flame war about top/bottom/proper
quoting -- but I'm genuinely confused about your points above (they seem to
contradict each other?).

I really need to play a bit with sup -- I hear they did a lot of things right.

For what it's worth, I think threading with quoting/conversations is still an
unsolved problem (and I'm not just talking corner-cases and presence/absence
of word wrap etc -- just what is the best way to present a conversation that
a) makes conversation flow easily, and with readily available (correct
amounts) of context while it is active, and b) reads like a reasonable
transcript/conversation without too much redundancy for someone seeing the
thread after the conversation has started. So far I think manually quoted
replies, with bottom posting is by far the best).

> who has the time to summarize/edit the quote anymore

Most people on high-quality discussion lists? I think this goes more towards a
"what is email as a medium"-type thing. Sometimes a quick reply is fine -- but
if you are writing more than a paragraph, it is probably worth the time to put
some effort into it (ironically, actively counteracted by things like hn's
simple text-input field -- unless you invoke a proper editor, for example
using the "It's all text!"-firefox extension, or ctrl-i for external editor
with vimperator).

I think it's more that people don't really compose emails anymore -- they
don't invoke a proper editor (whatever that may be for the user in question --
but something that at least allows a minimum of easy copy/cut/paste -- I would
say vim/emacs, some might want something a little more modern). But when
you're given an augmented text-field (the so-called rich web editors) --
ofcourse you won't be writing much. It's a horrible writing/editing
experience.

------
etfb
To the tune of _Tomorrow Belongs To Me_ from _Cabaret_ :

    
    
        *This Subnet Belongs To Me*
    
        The ‘Net is a creature of patches and parts,
        As free as the hawk on the breeze,
        With billions of voices and hands and hearts,
        Ruled only by RFCs.
    
            O, Internet RFC 1-8-5-5,
            Your paragraphs murmer to me!
            No protocol yet keeps the ‘Net alive
            As well as this RFC.
    
        When mailing, recall that the ‘Net’s not secure;
        Let copyright laws be your guide;
        Ignore any chains; let your quotes stay pure;
        Flame not; use a sig; don’t chide.
    
        Check every address; mark your messages “long”;
        Use smileys and caps sparingly;
        Don’t send an attachment; kneejerks are wrong;
        So speaketh this RFC.
    
            O, Internet RFC 1-8-5-5,
            Your sections are wise as can be!
            A luser or guru will surely thrive
            By trusting this RFC.
    
        When chatting, be patient and always assume
        That talk is as cheap as the dirt;
        When posting to news, don’t send spam, or Boom!
        Some hax0r will make you hurt!
    
        The guidlines exist both for wisemen and fools,
        They’re meant to be read carefully;
        For can you imagine what chaos rules
        Without such an RFC?
    
            O, Internet RFC 1-8-5-5,
            Our last and best hope, patently
            The ‘Net is a queen-less and smoke-filled hive
            Without such a thing
            Without such a thing
            Without such an RFC!

~~~
INTPenis
Here's one for xmas, RFC 968.

    
    
       Twas the night before start-up and all through the net,
         not a packet was moving; no bit nor octet.
       The engineers rattled their cards in despair,
         hoping a bad chip would blow with a flare.
       The salesmen were nestled all snug in their beds,
         while visions of data nets danced in their heads.
       And I with my datascope tracings and dumps
         prepared for some pretty bad bruises and lumps.
       When out in the hall there arose such a clatter,
         I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter.
    
       There stood at the threshold with PC in tow,
         An ARPANET hacker, all ready to go.
       I could see from the creases that covered his brow,
         he'd conquer the crisis confronting him now.
       More rapid than eagles, he checked each alarm
         and scrutinized each for its potential harm.
    
       On LAPB, on OSI, X.25!
         TCP, SNA, V.35!
    
       His eyes were afire with the strength of his gaze;
         no bug could hide long; not for hours or days.
       A wink of his eye and a twitch of his head,
         soon gave me to know I had little to dread.
       He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
         fixing a net that had gone plumb berserk;
       And laying a finger on one suspect line,
         he entered a patch and the net came up fine!
    
       The packets flowed neatly and protocols matched;
         the hosts interfaced and shift-registers latched.
       He tested the system from Gateway to PAD;
         not one bit was dropped; no checksum was bad.
       At last he was finished and wearily sighed
         and turned to explain why the system had died.
       I twisted my fingers and counted to ten;
         an off-by-one index had done it again...

~~~
jlgaddis

      'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the LAN
      No malware was stirring, not even LoveSan;
      The firewalls were racked by the router with care,
      In hopes that no hacker soon would be there;
      
      The users were nestled all snug in their beds,
      While visions of emails danced in their heads;
      And me with my MacBook, and fresh packet cap,
      Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,
      
      When out from the pager there arose such a clatter,
      I sprang to my desk to see what was the matter.
      Away to the browser I flew like a flash,
      Came through the VPN and refreshed the cache.
      
      The sign on the certificate gave me to know
      The session was safe, so I opened it - Lo!
      When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
      But a miniature email, and in text that was clear,
      
      With a new device driver, with a quick "ho ho ho",
      I knew in a moment it was our CSO.
      More rapid than eagles his memos they came,
      And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
      
      "Now, firewall! now, filter! now, intrusion detection!
      On, event correlation! deep packet inspection!
      Build layered defense! to the top of the wall!
      Now block away! block away! block away all!"
      
      As alarms that before the wild network worm fly,
      When they meet with my console, mount up to the sky,
      So up to the network the sensors they flew,
      With the rack full of gear, and the CSO too.
      
      And then, with a twinkling, I heard on my cell
      The custom ring-tone - the network was well.
      As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,
      Down to my inbox he came with a bound.
      
      His message was brief, what was afoot?
      Were servers and systems safe at the root?
      A bundle of appliances stacked on his rack,
      And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.
      
      Their lights -- how they twinkled! Their vendors - how merry!
      They stopped all attacks, they paged my BlackBerry!
      The poor little hackers were drawn up like a bow,
      And tied up in knots in the honeypot below;
      
      The stump of net packets held tight in our teeth,
      With logs all analyzed, traceroutes were a breeze;
      Our policies sound, vulnerabilities patched,
      Our security systems just could not be matched.
      
      He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
      And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
      A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
      Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
      
      He spoke not a word, but went straight to his audit,
      tested the firewalls; then turned to report it,
      And laying his finger aside of his nose,
      And giving a nod, up our T3 he rose;
      
      He sprang to his limo, gave his consultants a whistle,
      And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
      But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
      "HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, AND TO ALL A GOOD-NIGHT!"

------
geddes
One of the first items:

    
    
        - Never send chain letters via electronic mail.  Chain letters
          are forbidden on the Internet.  Your network privileges
          will be revoked.  Notify your local system administrator
          if your ever receive one.

I think when I got on the internet around 1996 half of the e-mails I got were
chain letters. Proves the fallacy of trying to claim that something is
'forbidden on the internet.'

~~~
simoncion
It might have written with tongue firmly in cheek. :)

~~~
username42
No, it was written before "eternal september"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Eternal September was in 1993, and the RFC 1855 was written in 1995. It is
specifically a response to Eternal September:

"Today, the community of Internet users includes people who are new to the
environment. These 'Newbies' are unfamiliar with the culture and don't need to
know about transport and protocols. In order to bring these new users into the
Internet culture quickly, this Guide offers a minimum set of behaviors which
organizations and individuals may take and adapt for their own use."

~~~
username42
I have learned the netiqette rules in 1990 when I learned about internet. The
RFC has gathered rules that were created before.

~~~
username42
2 points lost for giving insight and fixing mistakes. Thank you.

~~~
username42
3 points

by the way, if you read the rfc, you will see that many references are before
1993.

------
ekianjo
_Unless you are using an encryption device (hardware or software), you should
assume that mail on the Internet is not secure. Never put in a mail message
anything you would not put on a postcard._

Still very much true.

~~~
moconnor
Unfortunately this is miles away from how email has been marketed to (and is
used by) the general public.

------
gabemart
One netiquette question I've wondered about in the past: when emailing an
extremely busy person to ask for something, if they send you a message letting
you know they've done what you ask, is it better to reply, thanking them (thus
giving them yet another email to process) or thank them in advance in your
original message?

~~~
avar
Thinking people in advance when you're _asking_ them and not _expecting_ them
to do something always struck me as a bit rude. It gives off the implicit
expectation that they're going to do as you ask, and you might as well thank
them in advance since them agreeing to do what you're asking is just a
formality.

Personally I just express how much they'd be helping me if they did what I'm
asking and how much I'd appreciate it instead.

~~~
alan_cx
Why is thanking in advance not an expression of professional confidence in the
person you are emailing? And there for a huge compliment?

------
mattlutze

      Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages.  If you
          have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via
          FLAME ON/OFF enclosures.  For example:
          FLAME ON:  This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth
                     it takes to send it.  It's illogical and poorly
                     reasoned.  The rest of the world agrees with me.
          FLAME OFF
    

This doc is full of gems. Trolls and flame-bait? Just invoke your best Johnny
Flame impression.

I really think that if more people took time every day to scour the annals of
IETF RFC history, they'd find answers to many of the "new" problems we
discover every few years.

~~~
mattlutze

      Remember that talk is an interruption to the other person.  Only 
      use as appropriate.  And never talk to strangers.
    

Thanks Mom.

~~~
vog
This is only funny when torn out of context.

Note that this is about the Unix command "talk" (a primitive chat shown
directly the recipient's shell). This is not about aktually talking to people.

The phrase "never talk to strangers" is just a mnemonic.

~~~
mattlutze
I should have put a :) after my comment -- I found it humorous both in and out
of context, and thank you but I'm well aware of what talk is.

------
StevePerkins
I had the dubious honor of starting undergrad, and being introduced to the
Internet, during the actual Eternal September
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)).

As much as I've always been irked by some items in this document (e.g. all-
caps, chain letters, etc)... I definitely do not miss the days when half of
all discussion in any given forum was meta-babble about how to properly post
in the forum. I swear, back in the mid-90's it felt like every single Usenet
thread devolved into a shouting match between "bottom posters" and "top
posters"! Plonk!

This may be blasphemy, but even at that time I always believed that the tools
would have to evolve to fit human nature rather than the other way around. Why
not just improve your Usenet readers (even the shell-based ones) to minimize
quoted text regardless of where it's found? You know, like every single email
client does today without us thinking anything of it?

Such basic usability features were slow to appear... not because it's all that
technically challenging, but rather due to cultural resistance and purity
dogma. Nonsense. If any system of human interaction requires a high degree of
deliberate and manual cooperation, then it's not tenable and can be improved
by technology.

~~~
e12e
> Why not just improve your Usenet readers (even the shell-based ones) to
> minimize quoted text regardless of where it's found? You know, like every
> single email client does today without us thinking anything of it?

Do they now? As far as I've managed to figure out, gmail has a broken
conversation view that only works half the time, and then there's sup -- any
other email clients that do a good enough job of threading quoted
conversations?

I agree in principle -- fix the software -- but that implies fixing the
protocol first -- and we haven't done that yet. XMPP does a little something
to help (for conversations) -- but isn't a suitable solution for email-like
functionality.

I'd love to be wrong -- but I've yet to use any email client that has decent
"smart" threading of conversations (I don't use sup -- as of yet anyway).

------
tobyjsullivan
I love that a lot of these are still completely applicable (the mail rules at
least - haven't got to the rest).

If it didn't violate half the rules, I'd email this to everyone I know.
Perhaps I'll fax it instead...

------
teddyh
Link with proportional (non-fixed width) font:

[http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.html](http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.html)

~~~
liotier
Heretic !

~~~
teddyh
Maybe this one is more to your liking?

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt;type=a

------
gwu78
"Talk is a set of protocols that allow two people to have an interactive
dialogue via a computer."

I remember the first time I used talk. I think it is what got me hooked on
UNIX.

------
mathattack
Amazing that a lot of this has stood up to the test of time.

 _A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what
you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these "flames") even
if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get
flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames._

------
frik
Netiquette Guidelines (RFC1855, October 1995)

------
simonmales
If I was to employ someone, I would make them sign a copy of the Netiquette
RFC before they started.

