"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
>> Why? If the legal mumbo-jumbo has already got some precedence as being
>> un-enforcable (even if it's only in a handful of jurisdictions), why
>> give it even a patina of credibility by addressing it in a policy?
> It is alwa
Andrew Hammond wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/07, Tom Lane wrote:
A more serious objection is that any automated tool would probably get it
wrong sometimes, and strip important text.
> I vote 'lets not bother'
Right. I agree with Josh's idea about mentioning li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/07, Tom Lane wrote:
A more serious objection is that any automated tool would probably get it
wrong sometimes, and strip important text.
> I vote 'lets not bother'
Right. I agree with Josh's idea about mentioning list policies in the
subs
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> The only additional idea I have is that we ought to simply strip away any
>> e-mail footer over 4 lines from the archives. Not only would this purge
>> the
>> confidentiality footers, it would save us some space in general.
> The e
Josh Berkus wrote:
> The only additional idea I have is that we ought to simply strip away any
> e-mail footer over 4 lines from the archives. Not only would this purge the
> confidentiality footers, it would save us some space in general.
The effort it would take to write some code to extract
All,
> Perhaps we make a policy that corporate-style ("disclaimered") mail
> is encouraged to seek support via corporate-style channels (e.g. is
> pointed at the commercial support companies). I'm uncomfortable with
> such a policy, but it'd be better than "ignore these nasty corporate
> victims"
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 12:50:11PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> This is all true, but the reality here is that people in such a situation
> are usually flat-out violating their corporate policy by posting to the
> list at all from inside this kind of company.
We don't know that in advance, and
Greg Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If enough people do that, it might coerce people to avoid them, and
perhaps we could put something in the FAQ about it.
You should just say flat-out that the terms of the mailing list are
incompatible with confidentiality and similar
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I know we have talked about how to avoid legal email signatures on this
list. One idea would be for a small percentage of our users to ignore
emails with a legal signature. I know I am less likely to reply to such
an email.
Bah Bruce come on. The people that are sendi
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Moreover, people who are in such environments are often prevented from
visiting gmail, hotmail, or the other likely suspects in order to send
their messages in circumvention of corporate policy.
This is all true, but the reality here is that people
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If enough people do that, it might coerce people to avoid them, and
perhaps we could put something in the FAQ about it.
You should just say flat-out that the terms of the mailing list are
incompatible with confidentiality and similar legal disclaimers
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 06:14:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I know we have talked about how to avoid legal email signatures on this
> list. One idea would be for a small percentage of our users to ignore
> emails with a legal signature. I know I am less likely to reply to such
> an email.
T
I know we have talked about how to avoid legal email signatures on this
list. One idea would be for a small percentage of our users to ignore
emails with a legal signature. I know I am less likely to reply to such
an email.
If enough people do that, it might coerce people to avoid them, and
perh
13 matches
Mail list logo
