I guess we can debate about how useful or useless those disclaimers are.
However, just my 2p on this issue:
- Let define it: A disclaimer is generally _any statement_ intended to
specify or delimit the scope of rights and obligations _that may be
exercised and enforced_ by parties in a legally recognized relationship :))
- a legal opinion contains a huge disclaimer as well :)
- in several countries there is certain requirement towards how
communication can/cannot be conducted:
1. In Germany every bank is putting information about the Board
members and names (the same as on every headed paper)
2. In the UK, the FSA regulated companies are putting their FSA
registered number and other information in the footer section (the same
as on headed paper)
- I am a little bit surprised to learn that somebody thought that
disclaimer are legally binding.
I am not going to discuss the disclaimer on McDonald coffee: "Carefully,
very hot!". No way.....
Regards
Alex
On 25/11/2013 19:24, Dan McAllister wrote:
On 11/25/2013 1:11 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
The problem has to do with electronic signatures. Any sort of signing
that's done needs to happen after the footer is added. Having the
server add a footer would break gpg that's implemented by the client.
There might be a suitable way to add a footer on the server for
submitted (authenticated) messages that are otherwise unsigned,
before adding a DKIM signature. We can certainly look into this at
some point, but it's not a priority in my view. Of course, anyone can
make it their own priority and write some code to do it. This is
after all a community project.
P.S. I'd beg to differ that "all" enterprises implement this at the
server, although many of them do. Many of them also run Exchange,
which I do not recommend in most cases. ;)
P.P.S. There is also some disagreement as to the effectiveness of
these disclaimers. Personally, I think they're rather silly (although
IANAL). I wonder if there's ever been a case in court where a
disclaimer had any effect.
To Eric's point:
I have a number of financial advisors and insurance agencies that seem
to think that these "signatures" are a requirement (e.g.: "requests to
bind insurance cannot be made via email", etc.) However, recent legal
opinions in several states have held that these "signatures" cannot be
legally binding -- in part because they're being delivered via e-mail,
which makes them every bit as unenforceable as the typed of email
they're warning against.
Never the less, the *professional organizations* still suggest that
these disclaimers be present.
Kind of reminds me of the warning on the back of the *peanut butter*
jar that reads: "*WARNING: This product is manufactured in a plant
that may use peanuts.*"
Really?
Dan
--
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR NEW ADDRESS
===================================
IT4SOHO, LLC
33 - 4th Street N, Suite 211
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3806
CALL TOLL FREE:
877-IT4SOHO
877-484-7646 Phone
727-647-7646 Local
727-490-4394 Fax
We have support plans for QMail!
