On 2016-09-08, Random832 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 18:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> After all, that boilerplate just makes the corporation look stupid and
>> incompetent. Any email that leaves the corporate network must be
>> assumed to be visible to world+dog. Anybody who thinks differently is
>> deluded and should not be allowed access to information that is
>> "confidential and subject to privledge".
>
> If every lawyer in the world benefits from the interpretation that this
> sort of notice is legally effective (since tomorrow it may be they who
> accidentaly send privileged information), who will argue in court that
> it's not?
Anybody who benefits from it not being effective -- like the NYT
reporter who broke a front page story based on a misdirected email
(described in the article to which you linked).
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Is this sexual
at intercourse yet?? Is it,
gmail.com huh, is it??
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
