Let me try this again, because the other thread that I tried to needle on Private Correspondence turned into some kind of bit-twiddling geek-o-rama about Will-O-Th-ISPs that I could not follow even if it did turn out to have some hidden relevance to the vastly simpler issue that I was trying to discuss.

What I wanted to say up front is that we have to avoid confounding Normal People language with WikiPedia language, in particular, «NP:Private» with «WP:Private», in reference to Correspondence or anything else. As always, Normal People put their sanity in jeopardy every time they fall into the tar-trap of trying to map out and negotiate the GerryJimboMandered Semantic Terrortories of Wikiputia.

To the dubious extent that it means anything at all, «WP:Private» means the same thing in the context of Correspondence as it means in every other context, to wit, or not, the self-arrogated privilege of the Wikipedia Cabal to hide whatever data about itself it damn well pleases to hide. As far as according reciprocal rights to any other parties — well, don't make me laugh, it only makes me angry.

So what does «NP:Private» mean in regard to Correspondence and when do the rules of etiquette about Confidentiality apply in their Real World contexts?

That, at least, is a sensible question.

Jon Awbrey

My practice is to honor express requests for confidentiality of E-Mail with three exceptions.

Unsolicited E-Mail is not automatically entitled to confidentiality. Confidentiality only begins after an express agreement.

Threatening, obscene, bullying, or abusive messages are not protected in any case. I reserve the right to disclose or publicly reveal any messages which substantially exceed reasonable bounds of civility.

If someone publishes a false claim regarding the contents of E-Mail, I reserve the right to refute the false claim by exhibiting the referenced E-Mail.

All of these conditions sound eminently reasonable.

There is one other pertinent exception that I observe.

When I join a group that advertizes or charters its proceedings to be «Open», «Public», «Transparent», or any similar honorific term, and the members of that group conduct a portion of the group business by email, phone, in person meetings, or any similar means of communication, then all communications regarding the business of that group are subject to being made public at my discretion. Anything else would constitute a breach of faith, falsity in advertizing, or a violation of the charter, as the case may be.

Jon Awbrey

I think that email sent to a mailing list, at least one with more than five recipients, has little or no expectation of privacy. Any realistic definition of privacy diminishes in relation to total (authorized) readers on some power-law curve, square, cube, or quadratic.

It reminds me of the doofus who used to copy all of his emails to his attorney, marking each one "Attorney-Client Confidential" in the boneheaded view that this would protect all of his email correspondence from discovery requests. Needless to say, it didn't work, but what is more amusing is that it tainted many emails that were plausibly covered by privilege.