> 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.


> 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to