What about bulk emailers like the
Jesse Howard
_______________________
IT Administrator
[log in to unmask]
www.msupress.msu.edu
From: MSU Network
Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Wiggins
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:04
PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] FW:
Appropriate use of MSU e-mail services
Chris,
I guess you're mostly asking what are the substantive changes, but it
appears there are numerous changes in wording and style as well. As an
exercise, I located a copy of the 2007 ruling from Google's Cache. I then
loaded the 2007 rev into Word, and then the 2009 rev, and did a Compare between
the two. Word found many changes -- too many for me to sort out style
versus substance.
(Suggestion: keep every version of something as important as an
Administrative Ruling online forever. It's kind of like losing
legislative history otherwise.)
This appears to be a key substantive change:
Old:
“Bulk e-mail”
in this context means the transmission of an e-mail
message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who
may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail.
“Short time frame” means an interval spanning as long as 2 days. “Small set of
recipients” means the size of individual-recipient address lists (To, CC, BCC
fields) typical of most e-mails in common use,
ranging from 1, to a few, to as many as may be involved in a large committee or
work group (~20-30). Use of mailing lists and listservs
to which recipients may voluntarily opt in and opt out is encouraged, and this
type of e-mail distribution is not included in the
meaning of “bulk e-mail” in this document.
New:
III. Definitions
A. Bulk
e-mail: The transmission of an identical or substantially identical e-mail
message within a 48 hour period from an internal user to more than 10 other
internal users who have not elected to receive such e-mail.
/rich
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Chris Wolf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
And no one could take a little time to summarize the changes for us?
Not
even a clue? Shouldn't the very first FAQ be "What the heck changed in the
May 2009 update?"
I absolutely hate this kind of correspondence when it comes from my bank or
my cable company. It's just as worthless when it comes from the University.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Gift, Vice Provost, Libraries, Computing and Technology
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:09 PM
To: MSU Community
Subject: Appropriate use of MSU e-mail services
This message is sent to notify everyone with a MSU NetID of a revision of
the Administrative Ruling regarding appropriate use of MSU e-mail services.
This revision replaces and further clarifies an earlier Administrative
Ruling originally posted in November 2004 and updated in September 2007.
The Administrative Ruling is posted at:
http://lct.msu.edu/guidelines-policies/appropriate-use-of-msu-email.html
It is accompanied there by a related FAQ.