Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures
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", which is what the proposal so far sounds like to me.
First off, I'm not clear on why we're discussing this on -hackers; -www would
be the appropriate list. So I'm cross posting; please reply any additional
messages to -www.
Second, I'm not sure why we care. I don't believe that e-mail confidentiality
notices are in fact enforceable, or at least they haven't been in some
high-profile cases which made the news. IANAL, of course.
However:
> Haven't we been over this at least once before? Greg is right, just
> document the point and leave it alone. If you want to get really picky
> about, make the confirmation email from the subscription process
> specifically state that confirming subscription is an acceptance of the
> PostgreSQL.Org usage policies which can be found here (insert link).
This is a good idea anyway. We should have a list usage policy, and we should
link to if from the subscribe confirmation and from the web subscription
page. In addition to letting people know that e-mail confidentiality footers
will be ignored, we can tell them how the lists are moderated, how to
unsubscribe (can't have this in enough places), not to use HTML mail, etc.
So, who wants to write it?
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.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
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 the messages from the archive mboxes, break up the messages into their component parts, strip excess sig lines, reconstruct the messages, reconstruct the mboxes and then regenerate the archives would probably equate in dollar value to the disk space required for another 40 or 50 years worth of archives. I vote 'lets not bother' :-) /D
Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> 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 effort it would take to write some code to extract the messages from
> the archive mboxes, break up the messages into their component parts,
> strip excess sig lines, reconstruct the messages, reconstruct the mboxes
> and then regenerate the archives would probably equate in dollar value
> to the disk space required for another 40 or 50 years worth of archives.
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
subscription confirmation message, though.
regards, tom lane
-----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 > subscription confirmation message, though. 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? Saying that it's not applicable here implies that is is applicable elsewhere. To quote Ghandi "first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win." I say we stick with the laughing. To that end, I propose should have a policy about being pelted with scathing sarcasm when the signal to boilerplate ratio drops below 10:1. Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGbxln+zlEYLc6JJgRAuaNAJsECSRrgIqR1f5c15P7OszVa34lVgCghWSb io55WHyChKGQVHCQ9R+z2ec= =KNyQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 list policies in the >> subscription confirmation message, though. > > 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? We are addressing the "whole" using postgresql.org mailing lists issue. The legality issue is only part of it. It is always a good idea to document against stuff like this, just in case. Joshua D. Drake > Saying that it's not applicable here implies that is is applicable > elsewhere. To quote Ghandi "first they laugh at you, then they ignore > you, then they fight you, then you win." I say we stick with the > laughing. To that end, I propose should have a policy about being > pelted with scathing sarcasm when the signal to boilerplate ratio > drops below 10:1. > > Andrew > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFGbxln+zlEYLc6JJgRAuaNAJsECSRrgIqR1f5c15P7OszVa34lVgCghWSb > io55WHyChKGQVHCQ9R+z2ec= > =KNyQ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> 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 always a good idea to document against stuff like this, just in case.
If push came to shove, which I sure hope it never does, being able to
say "you agreed to these terms of use of the mailing lists" would be
an excellent defense. They'd have to argue "that's not binding because
we didn't legally agree", whereupon we could reply "sure, and your
disclaimer is equally not binding because we didn't agree to it".
Whereupon they slink away quietly. Without such a reply they might
manage to get a court to listen for awhile before throwing them out.
If there's anything I've learned about matters legalistic, it's that
it's always better to have more than one line of defense.
regards, tom lane
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 4:04 pm, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, [...snipped...] > This is a good idea anyway. We should have a list usage policy, and we > should link to if from the subscribe confirmation and from the web > subscription page. In addition to letting people know that e-mail > confidentiality footers will be ignored, we can tell them how the lists are > moderated, how to unsubscribe (can't have this in enough places), not to > use HTML mail, etc. > ok.. of course as an "experienced user" I agree that HTML on the mailing list postings should be banned. kmail has a setting for this, but I doubt that the common Windows Email Client does. my suggestion is to link to reasons *why* HTML in email is bad (and no, "because spam is sent using html" is not a good enough reason:)), and perhaps a link to a document that talks about how to turn it off with yahoo, gmail, OE, etc would help. actually.. is HTML in email all that bad if there is a reasonable text/plain version attached? granted it chews bandwidth and storage space in the archives.. so.. hmm. :) regards, -- Jeff MacDonald, Zoid Technologies <http://zoidtechnologies.com/>
Jeff MacDonald wrote: > but I doubt that the > common Windows Email Client does. I've never come across a Microsoft MUA that didn't have a plain text option. /D
Dave Page wrote: > Jeff MacDonald wrote: >> but I doubt that the common Windows Email Client does. > > I've never come across a Microsoft MUA that didn't have a plain text > option. Sure, but they also all send html by default. Joshua D. Drake > > /D > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Jeff MacDonald wrote: >>> but I doubt that the common Windows Email Client does. >> >> I've never come across a Microsoft MUA that didn't have a plain text >> option. > > Sure, but they also all send html by default. Nope. At least OL in a corp environment will default to RTF format, which the server turns into plaintext when it goes on the internet. Again, this is with the default config. A lot of people change it, of course. (actually, it may have changed in the latest versions of OL, but it was like this not long ago) //Magnus
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > This is a good idea anyway. We should have a list usage policy, > and we should link to if from the subscribe confirmation and from > the web subscription page. In addition to letting people know that > e-mail confidentiality footers will be ignored, we can tell them > how the lists are moderated, how to unsubscribe (can't have this in > enough places), not to use HTML mail, etc. > > So, who wants to write it? If there are no other volunteers (I may have overlooked them), I'm willing to. I'm all for a note in the subscription &c. that says we don't approve of, and will not be bound by, these footers. I just don't think we should ignore the poor sods on whom these things have been inflicted. > 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. I will support this as soon as you can guarantee that the program to do this cannot, in any possible world, ever have any bugs ;-) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca Everything that happens in the world happens at some place. --Jane Jacobs
Dave Page wrote: > Jeff MacDonald wrote: > > but I doubt that the > > common Windows Email Client does. > > I've never come across a Microsoft MUA that didn't have a plain text option. I get hotmail email that has no text if the user used colors in the email. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:42:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > Jeff MacDonald wrote: > > > but I doubt that the > > > common Windows Email Client does. > > > > I've never come across a Microsoft MUA that didn't have a plain text option. > > I get hotmail email that has no text if the user used colors in the > email. It has the *option*. Doesn't mean it's used. But you get this now? Most of the time, I get a combined one with one plaintext and one html part, IIRC... But it could be a user setting or somethign. //Magnus
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 01:12:40PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > But you get this now? Most of the time, I get a combined one with one > plaintext and one html part, IIRC... But it could be a user setting or > somethign. Or maybe an old server. The only _proper_ way to send messages that are supposed to be 2822 messages is to include at least one RFC822 message body. This may change when EAI is adopted, but until that day, MIME is your friend and not sending an RFC822 message body is a way of telling parts of the Internet that you don't want to talk to them. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant- garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. --Brad Holland