> 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".

Well the problem is, it isn't the guy that sent the patch that is the
idiot. That guys has zero control over the matter, the signature is
going to be tacked on at the MTA level.

I talked to my attorneys about this problem (not specific to postgresql
but in general) because my CPAs also have the same type of notice.

My attorney's response was that it is all about disclosure and covering
your butt. Not ours, but theirs. The idea being that they can say, "Look
we sent out the confidential disclosure, it isn't our fault the
recipients didn't listen."

Of course the joke here is, that the email went out on a public list and
is now mirrored all over the world and harvested by every spammer on the
planet ;)

However, it may be a good idea to have our (SPI) attorney at least give
us an official word on the matter. Thoughts?


Joshua D. Drake

>                       regards, tom lane


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

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


Reply via email to