Richard Clayton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Holmgren > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> The right way to add text to a signed and/or encrypted mail would, I >> believe, >> be by adding a new MIME part, just like Mailman does. The disclaimer won't >> be >> signed or encrypted, of course, but then again it doesn't really contain any >> information. > > Not all signed/encrypted email is MIME (such as this email, at least > when it left here) ! > > So you need to understand more than one signing format to have a chance > of getting things correct > > Also, as someone who regularly signs their email, I am very used to > people with less capable email clients (such as some of those made in > the Pacific Northwest of the USA) asking me why I keep sending extra > attachments with funny characters in... viz: you cannot assume that > every client will properly cope with multiple attachments in a good way > > So the proper answer is that the text should be put there by the > originating email systems. If you want to second-guess the need for the > disclaimer (or company info -- which is only needed in the UK on > "business email"... and I really don't think this email is "business" > (though it's hardly "pleasure" either)) then by all means do a check for > it as the mail passes by... simple, elegant and avoids a lot of scope > for making emails unreadable at the far end :( > > Nigel was asking about the legality of altering email. IANAL [though I > try to keep up to date on these things], but I strongly suspect that the > underlying issue that people are vaguely remembering is the ECommerce > Directive notion of "mere conduit". > > ISPs that alter email passing through their systems lose this statutory > defence (although they could well still have many other defences against > liability). However, "mere conduit" would not be an issue for a > corporate email system -- and I cannot see that their liability for an > email changes one way or the other by an automated addition of text (or > mangling of headers or whatever). > > - -- > richard Richard Clayton
Thank you, Richard! I am glad I waited before posting my 'IANAL' detailed two-pager ith a hundred years and more of common-carrier 'precedent' as it might have been interpreted as 'I'm Anal'. ;-) Your post is as definitive - and concise - as I believe it can get for smtp. Best, Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
