On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:40:39 -1000, Paul Graydon said: > Which I do. But note the original complaint was not about using > ridiculously long disclaimers on a mailing list, it was about the > ridiculously long disclaimer, full stop.
If your corporate policy insists on huge disclaimers regarding confidential information on e-mails sent to public maling lists, it's busticated, pure and simple. And unless somebody can cite actual statute or case law where such a blanket disclaimer made an *actual difference*, the policy *in general* is busticated. Yes, I know that it *does* matter for *some specific* content. But the only case law I know of was one judge who (in an unfortunately non-precidential way) said the fact that a company felt the need to put a blanket disclaimer on all the e-mail was doing itself a dis-favor, because it tended to indicate that the company had no clue or control over what content was in fact privileged or confidential.
pgpmOv3vW7hnr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
