I see black on white...
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>> "Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts"
>> - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
>
> Dark grey text on a black background is unreadable.
> Plonk goes the website.
>
> "Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts"
> - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
Dark grey text on a black background is unreadable.
Plonk goes the website.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Landon Stewart wrote:
> "Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts"
> - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
>
> "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless"
> - http://www.economist.com/nod
"Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts"
- http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/
"Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless"
- http://www.economist.com/node/18529895
Postel's Law seems relevant to this issue.
Sorry for contributing to the noise.
On 9/9/2015 10:23, Alan Buxey wrote:
It's just text at the bottom of your email.
1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was
something like 10x longer than the comment! 2 its pointless. Its not
enforceable and doesn't mean anything.
Shall i put a chapter of war and peac
On 9/9/2015 20:22, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I can not believe (except as, perhaps, an irrefutable sign of my
advancing years) that I did not mention the very personal objection to
the apparently content-free Wile E. Coyote legalese pollution:
The irrefutable fact that in years (and administration
tion.
Regards,
Dovid
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon
Sender: "NANOG" Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:22:14
To:
Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
> I am trying to understand why the legal babbl
On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
it give you a nervous twitch?
Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is
obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it
because the
>If your employer insists on attaching a legalistic signature to your
>email which warns the recipient that the message is for their eyes
>only... it's because you are not authorized to make public statements
>as an employee of the company.
No, that's not it. A disclaimer "I don't speak for fooco
sitions of authority...
jms
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon
Sender: "NANOG" Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30
To:
Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, C
On 09/09/15 06:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
> it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
> just text at the bottom of your email.
I've seen it in multiple languages (not necessarily on this list).
Furthermore,
> On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
>> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
>> it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
>> just text at the bottom of your email.
Here's the thing...
If your employer insists on attaching a legalist
> Sender: "NANOG" Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30
> To:
> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
>
> On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote:
>>> Honestl
On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does
it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's
just text at the bottom of your email.
It's all about best practices.
In an e-mail thread, where the thread grows wi
I love cat videos.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> Dovid Bender wrote:
> > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt
> > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a
> > mystery.
> >
>
> No mystery ... It wastes bits that c
Dovid Bender wrote:
> I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt
> anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a
> mystery.
>
No mystery ... It wastes bits that could otherwise be used to watch cat videos.
;)
Tony
"legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
>It's just text at the bottom of your email.
1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was something
like 10x longer than the comment!
2 its pointless. Its not enforceable and doesn't mean anything.
Shall i p
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:36:39 -, "Dovid Bender" said:
> I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give
> you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the
> bottom of your email.
Disclaimers like those are like brown M&M's backstage at a Van
In article
<1515735780-1441805800-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1712088326-@b13.c3.bise6.blackberry>
you write:
>I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give
>you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal?
>It's just text at the bottom of your emai
>It's just text at the bottom of your email.
1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was something
like 10x longer than the comment!
2 its pointless. Its not enforceable and doesn't mean anything.
Shall i put a chapter of war and peace at the end of my emails? You cou
15 03:56:30
To:
Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote:
>> Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's
>> only
On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote:
Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's
only a seething issue to you because you let it be.
Curiously enough, the same thing was said about spam 30-ish years ago.
T
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote:
> Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's
> only a seething issue to you because you let it be.
Curiously enough, the same thing was said about spam 30-ish years ago.
The "ignore it and maybe it will go away"
On 2015-09-06 19:18, Scott Weeks wrote:
It could be much easier. Folks that care about the
mailing list rules, want to be courteous to list
folks and want to use their company email, rather
than one that inserts no disclaimer, could put 15
lines of blank as part of their signature. This
would f
--- larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
From: Larry Sheldon
On 9/6/2015 14:18, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
> From: Robert Drake
>
> Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official
> end-of-signature flag. Then you could have
> procmail strip everything after the flag:
> -
On 9/6/2015 14:18, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
From: Robert Drake
Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official
end-of-signature flag. Then you could have
procmail strip everything after the flag:
-
It could be much easier.
--- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
From: Robert Drake
Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official
end-of-signature flag. Then you could have
procmail strip everything after the flag:
-
It could be much easier. Folks that care about the
mailing lis
On 9/6/2015 11:46, Robert Drake wrote:
Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official end-of-signature flag.
Then you could have procmail strip everything after the flag:
--
This is my signature
My phone number goes here
I like dogs
-- end of signature --
Everythin
On 9/4/2015 6:31 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
I, for one, feel your pain in this matter. When I was a consultant in
The Bad Ol' Days, I had so many telephone numbers where I *could* be
that my .sig would be a run-on one as well. As a compromise, I had my
cell number and a hyperlink to a We
On 09/04/2015 12:32 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
As a defensive measure (among others) I crafted a .sig that contained
all of the telephone numbers and email addresses by which I could be
reached (included a pager number) 7 x 24 x 52 with (guaranteed) no more
than 20 minute delay.
It ran to 7 lines,
On 9/4/2015 14:40, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
There's quite a difference between the 'legal babble' and 'contact
info' at the end of a message.
What part of "required by employer" is different?
I'm not seeing it.
--
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
There's quite a difference between the 'legal babble' and 'contact
info' at the end of a message.
Regardless, my comment was meant for fun, not to upset you.
-A
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Y'all can stop thumping on me about it "because it is required by the
> employe
33 matches
Mail list logo
