On 1/2/08, David Lum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Flamed? Damn…I see no reason for flames as I understand the need for such > disclaimers, I'm just glad I don't have to do that….yet. If I had to do a > CMA disclaimer I'd just have a link that points to one. Takes Internet to > get e-mail, takes Internet to read the disclaimer…in effect it takes HTTP + > e-mail to make anything said in the e-mail "legitimate". Hey, that's not > much worse than some of the EULA's we see, right? > > Lawyers will likely disagree, but hey, I'm allowed to like my own theory > right?
Not worth a flame, but that disclaimer is certainly not worth including, either. No lawyer worth his salt will defend such a thing in court, because it's basically worthless. Not only is it a footer, which means you only get to see it *after* you've read the message, you can't enforce it after it's arrived in someone's inbox by mistake. Kurt <snip> > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or > attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), > confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, > dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without > the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information > may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act > of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or > unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil > and/or criminal penalties. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
