The New York Times recently described a new, direct-to-voicemail service. It allows callers to leave a message on a cell phone voicemail, without actually speaking to the person called. The service apparently is promoted as a way to announce breakups and other bad news, or to create an appearance of staying in touch.

This service is just a tool. If it catches on, it will find a place among text messaging and e-mail.

But I find this news service unnerving, because it sends confusing signals on finality and dialog.

Finality is sometimes under-appreciated. A “final offer” is often anything but, and instead a loud signal to negotiation. Yet in many situations, it’s important to state, plainly and clearly, that one party is putting an end to discussions. The voicemail service sends a confusing message about finality because the usual response to a message is to call back, or at least to expect a follow-up call.

Telephone conversations are usually used to have a discussion. This is an obvious point. But the new voicemail service sends confusing signals here as well, because it’s designed for one-way communication. What the service brings to my mind are telephone-based services where a caller interacts with a machine, for example to learn about movie times or flight schedules, or to cancel a magazine subscription.

Maybe there’s an opportunity for a letter-writing renaissance, as letters are good to mark and ending. And maybe we should think more about e-mail habits, especially mass cc’ing and reflexively sending a reply, particularly when the only added content is “yes”, or “good point.”