On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:39:29 +1300 (NZDT)
Philip Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Nick Rout wrote:
>
> > And there is no doubt that they have legal effect. Some duties of
> > confidentiality depend on the person on whom you wish to impose a duty
> > having knowledge of the confidential natu
> Yes, for example if I (as a lawyer) accidentally send a message to you
> instead of my client (maybe he has a similar name), and I make it clear
> that it is in fact confidential, or if the nature of the communication is
> obviously confidential, then yes you would have a duty not to splash
> i
: linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Email ettiquette rant
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:39:29 +1300 (NZDT)
Philip Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Nick Rout wrote:
>
> > And there is no doubt that they have legal effect. Some duties of
> > confidentiality depend on
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:39:29 +1300 (NZDT), Philip Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Nick Rout wrote:
>
> > And there is no doubt that they have legal effect. Some duties of
> > confidentiality depend on the person on whom you wish to impose a duty
> > having knowledge of the confidential natur
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 09:31:33AM +1300, Nick Rout wrote:
> The trouble is the proliferation of such disclaimers & declarations
> into situations where they are clearly inappropriate tends to devalue
> them to the point of worthlessness.
Personally I prefer
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/18
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Nick Rout wrote:
> And there is no doubt that they have legal effect. Some duties of
> confidentiality depend on the person on whom you wish to impose a duty
> having knowledge of the confidential nature of the information.
Can such a notice impose a duty of confidentiality o
And there is no doubt that they have legal effect. Some duties of
confidentiality depend on the person on whom you wish to impose a duty
having knowledge of the confidential nature of the information.
The trouble is the proliferation of such disclaimers & declarations into
situations where they a
I took some flak when the "disclaimer" was first applied. We haven't discussed
the philosophy or legal standing of such disclaimers beyond Chris's little, um,
enthuse last week.
Robert Himmelmann wrote:
This must have been before I came here. Where about in the archives can
I find this conversa
This must have been before I came here. Where about in the archives can
I find this conversation?
I heartily agree. But we've covered this before, ad nauseum. Thanks
for the painful reminder.
Happy Hacking,
Robert Himmelmann
Use free software only. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.h
I was recently informed privately, that I was to put my replies at the
bottom.
On another list I am on, with 36,000+ members, the new comments are to
go at the top, as suggested by Derek in this Post.
Linz
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:33 +1300, Derek Smithies wrote:
> Hi,
> There are, I am told, two
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:13, Douglas Royds wrote:
> > Anybody who sends secret stuff
> > by clear text email is a total idiot,
> > and should be sacked pronto. Now you know!!
> > =
>
> I heartily agree. But we've covered this before, ad nauseum. Thanks for the
> painful reminder.
Jus
Now that a fair few of you have stuck your necks out, I thought I'd
share my thoughts again :-)
Top-posting. I like it - but I also try to signal the end of my message
by signing off before the quoted section begins. Handy when the thread
is new or active, where people have probably just read t
First of all, congratulations are due to Jim on a most excellent list-bomb. You
go, boy!
Steve Holdoway wrote:
On Wed, February 16, 2005 10:33 am, Derek Smithies said:
There are, I am told, two basic styles of replying to an email
a)delete none/some/most of the email being replied to,
and inte
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
And the other email
sin imho is putting lines
and lines of arse covering
bumph down here. It's totally
irrelevent when posting to
a public mail list community, and
I suspect legally unenforceable.
Anybody who sends secret stuff
by clear text email is a to
[Intentionally top posting and leaving this post in its entirity as the OP
has completely disagreed with himself and shown how a well answered email
should, IMHO, be structured]
Nuff said? Foot meet shotgun?
Steve
On Wed, February 16, 2005 11:54 am, Derek Smithies said:
> Hi,
>
>> > My colleag
Hi,
> > My colleagues tell me that a style is the one preferred by many internet
> > users.
>
> What does that tell you?
Several possible things
a)That a view is held by "most" people does not make it correct.
b)Many internet users may/may not take the time to ensure their thoughts
id
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:49 +1300, Jason Greenwood wrote:
> BTW - I personally HATE bottom posting... =)
So do I. :)
[FX: Wt! Wt! Irony Alert!!]
Vik ;v)
--
Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Olliver Family
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:48, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> This is a joke, right?
I fear not.
What really gets _my_ goat is posters hijacking the threads!
Butting into other peoples conversations might be considered
acceptable behaviour in some societies, but it is not for me!
--
Christopher Sawtell.
=
On Wed, February 16, 2005 10:33 am, Derek Smithies said:
> Hi,
> There are, I am told, two basic styles of replying to an email
>
> a)delete none/some/most of the email being replied to,
> and intersperse comments at (seemingly) random positions in the
> result.
>
> b)delete none/some/m
BTW - I personally HATE bottom posting... =)
> b is (my view) definately superior to a). When viewing the resultant email,
> noone has to scroll down, hunting for reply comments.
Wow, now everyone has to scroll down, hunting for the bit which was
replied to.
> All reply comments are clearly visible.
Yeah, just impossible to find within
Hi,
There are, I am told, two basic styles of replying to an email
a)delete none/some/most of the email being replied to,
and intersperse comments at (seemingly) random positions in the
result.
b)delete none/some/most (usually none) of the email being replied to,
and place all repl
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:25:04 +1300
Andrew Errington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:17, you wrote:
> > I need to have a small rant this morning ... please bear with me.
> >
> > Some of you, notably those who have been (presumably) using email for
> > many many years, are NOT QU
> Can't any of you use the delete key? Please please please edit out the
Couldn't agree more!!! And the worst offenders are those Oldies who
really should know better...
One day I'll get round to writing this procmail recipe which will post a
how-to-quote reminder in response to any post with a
Andrew Errington wrote:
Me too!
Yeah, just like that :-) I need another coffee ...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:17, you wrote:
> I need to have a small rant this morning ... please bear with me.
>
> Some of you, notably those who have been (presumably) using email for
> many many years, are NOT QUOTING properly.
>
> I've just seen a bottom-post with *34 lines* of the previous
> convers
26 matches
Mail list logo
