"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly