On Mon, August 18, 2014 09:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Mon, August 18, 2014 5:50 am, Toralf Lund wrote:
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
I'm sorry if that offends anyone, the the BS nature of e-mail footers like this one always offends my intelligence. As a recipient of e-mail I didn't give my consent to be obliged to anything. whatever you sent me was at your sole discretion. You want any obligations from the recipient of your message, you should contact the recipient first and get him agree to be obliged to anything you request.
Who is the idiot lawyer who wrote it? He shouldn't even have layer degree for incompetence! Even I, not lawyer, do understand that you can not make the person obliged to do or not do anything by unilaterally doing something (sending that person e-mail with idiotic footer).
You mean like forcing someone to agree to the terms of a license through the act opening the package that contains the text of said license? You would be amazed as what corporate interests have twisted the courts into doing for them through sponsored legislation (DMCA for example).
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
I just delete messages with such things; unread whenever I notice them in time, otherwise ignoring the contents if I do not.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:12:36AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
It's all noise and such nonsense should be restricted by policy by list owners. If people can't figure out email by now they need to go back to using pencil and paper.
John
On 19/08/14 15:15, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:12:36AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
It's all noise and such nonsense should be restricted by policy by list owners. If people can't figure out email by now they need to go back to using pencil and paper.
It should be pretty clear in this case that the "intended recepient" is the mailing list and consequently everyone subscribed to it. So what is there to make all this noise about?
Furthermore, the information is added by the SMTP server (not the MUA), so it can't be removed just like that, and due to firewall policies etc. it's not very easy to send the messages via a different one. And trying to get this feature removed from the service would be fighting windmills.
I should imagine that many corporate users face similar issues, so "restricting by policy" like you suggest would mean excluding all of them from the list(s). Is that what you want?
- Toralf
John
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On Tue, August 19, 2014 9:08 am, Toralf Lund wrote:
On 19/08/14 15:15, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:12:36AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
It's all noise and such nonsense should be restricted by policy by list owners. If people can't figure out email by now they need to go back to using pencil and paper.
It should be pretty clear in this case that the "intended recepient" is the mailing list and consequently everyone subscribed to it. So what is there to make all this noise about?
Wrong. Legally. It is sender and sender alone who knows one's own intent.
Furthermore, the information is added by the SMTP server (not the MUA), so it can't be removed just like that, and due to firewall policies etc. it's not very easy to send the messages via a different one. And trying to get this feature removed from the service would be fighting windmills.
If you agree it is nonsense, start using free e-mail (gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail to name some, even though I may not agree with privacy policies of at leas some of them).
I should imagine that many corporate users face similar issues, so "restricting by policy" like you suggest would mean excluding all of them from the list(s). Is that what you want?
I was expecting the list owner to kick one or both of us two and ban from the list forever. For creating unnecessary noise on the list. Would that happen, I will have to subscribe my different e-mail address (on another server I maintain as well). You (if you too will be banned from the list), hopefully, will start using free (as opposed to "slave"? - OK, disclaimer: just kidding, no legal catch on me here -;) e-mail address.
As far as fighting windmills is concerned: I'm fighting against one of them being brought into my backyard (OK, not _my_, but the one of free community I'm member of).
Valeri
- Toralf
John
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 19/08/14 17:19, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Tue, August 19, 2014 9:08 am, Toralf Lund wrote:
On 19/08/14 15:15, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:12:36AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
It's all noise and such nonsense should be restricted by policy by list owners. If people can't figure out email by now they need to go back to using pencil and paper.
It should be pretty clear in this case that the "intended recepient" is the mailing list and consequently everyone subscribed to it. So what is there to make all this noise about?
Wrong. Legally. It is sender and sender alone who knows one's own intent.
I'm not so sure about that. Isn't there is also the matter of what one may reasonably be expected to assume or understand, and that kind of thing?
Furthermore, the information is added by the SMTP server (not the MUA), so it can't be removed just like that, and due to firewall policies etc. it's not very easy to send the messages via a different one. And trying to get this feature removed from the service would be fighting windmills.
If you agree it is nonsense, start using free e-mail (gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail to name some, even though I may not agree with privacy policies of at leas some of them).
I think the note is unnecessary, but nothing to make a fuss about. Based on that,
1. I can't see why I should let work-related e-mails bog down one of my private email accounts. 2. I don't think I have a good enough reason for degrading to one of those annoying web interfaces. (Like I said, I can't use a real email application with an outside address, thanks to the firewall.)
I should imagine that many corporate users face similar issues, so "restricting by policy" like you suggest would mean excluding all of them from the list(s). Is that what you want?
I was expecting the list owner to kick one or both of us two and ban from the list forever.
That would be more reasonable ;-)
For creating unnecessary noise on the list. Would that happen, I will have to subscribe my different e-mail address (on another server I maintain as well). You (if you too will be banned from the list), hopefully, will start using free (as opposed to "slave"? - OK, disclaimer: just kidding, no legal catch on me here -;) e-mail address.
As far as fighting windmills is concerned: I'm fighting against one of them being brought into my backyard (OK, not _my_, but the one of free community I'm member of).
Well, good luck on that.
- Toralf
Valeri
- Toralf
John
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 08:15 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:12:36AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
I agree about the BS part but that does not make it unenforceable BS in some jurisdictions. And then there is always the threat of impoverishment through litigation. A big enough complainant can simply litigate frivolous torts to impose an economic penalty on its victim regardless of the outcome. Those sorts of disclaimers simple provide a pretext.
It's all noise and such nonsense should be restricted by policy by list owners. If people can't figure out email by now they need to go back to using pencil and paper.
Using pencil, or quill pen, and paper is still no guarantee of competence !
-
Always Learning -
James B. Byrne -
John R. Dennison -
Toralf Lund -
Valeri Galtsev