RFC 1855: nostalgic netiquette
I was just perusing RFC 1855, possibly one of the earliest guides to netiquette that you’re likely to find still readily available, and thought I’d share a few exerpts:
In the past, the population of people using the Internet had “grown up” with the Internet, were technically minded, and understood the nature of the transport and the protocols. 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.
RFC 1855 was released by the IETF in October 1995. For anyone who’s enough of a newbie not to know what that means, the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) is the body that comes up with the standards and protocols that the Internet runs on. For instance, if you’re in the mood, you could read how HTTP works or about the format for sending email. The standards documents are known as “Requests For Comment” even after they’re published and accepted. I don’t think anyone really knows why.
Of course, the irony of the IETF releasing a Netiquette document for newbies is that the newbies aren’t likely to be reading RFCs.
Anyway, on with the show.
Here’s something I wish was still in force:
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.
(emphasis mine.)
Some wishful thinking on using “talk” programs:
Use mixed case and proper punctuation, as though you were typing a letter or sending mail.
And some advice on mailing lists and newsgroups more honoured in the breach than the observance:
Read both mailing lists and newsgroups for one to two months before you post anything. This helps you to get an understanding of the culture of the group.
The thing that interests me is that there are aspects of netiquette which are hot topics now but which weren’t even addressed in the RFC. I’m thinking of top-posting, here. Remember that Windows ‘95 was released in August 1995, and that — if I recall correctly — the early version of Outlook that came with it was where the top-posting abomination began. It seems the IETF hadn’t realised, in October of that year, what an issue it was going to be.
When it comes to ancient netiquette guidelines, one of my favourites is for short, plain sigfiles. I must admit I wince whenever I receive an multi-coloured HTML one from a certain family member, and dislike it even more when a workplace forces me to use such a thing (luckily, this happens rarely in my field.)
It’s interesting that the IETF don’t seem to have taken up the challengee of writing a more up to date netiquette guide. I imagine that the Internet simply has too many communities and ways of communicating to make it possible to do so in a single document any more.
3 Comments so far
Leave a reply










AFAIK, the “Requests for Comments” got their name because the people who wrote the first such documents didn’t want to step on anybody’s toes by naming them something more formal-sounding like “standard”. (Source: “The Dream Machine, J.C.R. Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal”.)
Strange to mention this on an etiquette blog (-:
Andreas: Funnily enough, when I chaired the Perl 6 language design mailing list, we called our requests for comment, well, Requests For Comment, and had quite a difficult time explaining to everyone that no, really, we were just requesting comment, not setting standards :)
“Your network privileges will be revoked”: ah, those were the days. :-) Not that I want to sound like too much of an elitist, but until the September That Never Ended, it was actually more or less possible to educate the newbies *and* the net was obscure enough that not being allowed on wasn’t a major hinderance. Now, of course, anyone with a credit card can be connected and there’s a broad presumption that people are.
I’m pretty sure you’re right about the Outlook abomination. I’m curious about what efforts were made at the time to get Microsoft to consider fixing it. (Not that they necessarily would have, but what kind of pressure was brought to bear? Did we just let them get away with it until the Outlook monster had taken over the world?)
I read my personal mail using pine on a Unix box. At work I am required to use Outlook, but I force everything to plain text. Both of these protect me from the cutsey colorful goofy-fonted signatures you mentioned, though of course the verbose ones are still verbose.