"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... In regards to your idea of a filter, there is no reason why
> we couldn't install a filter that checks for signatures with specific
> legal words and strips said signature automatically, responding to the
> sender that we did so.
The problem is that if $SENDER's corporate lawyers actually think that
it means something to put a restriction-of-rights notice on a message
sent to a public mailing list, then they might think that posting the
message with the notice stripped represents a violation of their barren
intellectual property :-(. What I'd like us to do is bounce it back.
A slightly cleaner version of the notice might be "If you wish to post
this message on our worldwide mailing lists, and thereby make unrepaid
use of our redistribution and archiving resources, then you may not
assert the right to restrict redistribution of your message."
Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend