Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-10 Thread Joel Maslak
Postel's Law seems relevant to this issue. Sorry for contributing to the noise.

RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-10 Thread Keith Medcalf
> "Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts" > - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/ Dark grey text on a black background is unreadable. Plonk goes the website.

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-10 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Landon Stewart wrote: > "Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts" > - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/ > > "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" > -

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-10 Thread Landon Stewart
"Email Disclaimers: Legal Effect in American Courts" - http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/legal-effect-of-boilerplate-email-disclaimers/ "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" - http://www.economist.com/node/18529895

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Dovid Bender
uot; <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote: >> Honestly.. the bes

RE: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Tony Hain
Dovid Bender wrote: > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a > mystery. > No mystery ... It wastes bits that could otherwise be used to watch cat videos. ;) Tony

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread John Levine
In article <1515735780-1441805800-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1712088326-@b13.c3.bise6.blackberry> you write: >I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give >you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? >It's just text at the bottom of your

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:36:39 -, "Dovid Bender" said: > I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give > you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the > bottom of your email. Disclaimers like those are like brown M's backstage at a Van

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Dovid Bender
curve.com>; Larry Sheldon<larryshel...@cox.net>; NANOG<nanog-boun...@nanog.org>; <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. >It's just text at the bottom of your email. 1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the l

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Alan Buxey
>It's just text at the bottom of your email. 1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was something like 10x longer than the comment! 2 its pointless. Its not enforceable and doesn't mean anything. Shall i put a chapter of war and peace at the end of my emails? You

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread John Levine
>If your employer insists on attaching a legalistic signature to your >email which warns the recipient that the message is for their eyes >only... it's because you are not authorized to make public statements >as an employee of the company. No, that's not it. A disclaimer "I don't speak for

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote: I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch? Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it because

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Dovid Bender
Regards, Dovid -Original Message- From: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:22:14 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. On 9

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/9/2015 20:22, Larry Sheldon wrote: I can not believe (except as, perhaps, an irrefutable sign of my advancing years) that I did not mention the very personal objection to the apparently content-free Wile E. Coyote legalese pollution: The irrefutable fact that in years (and

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/9/2015 10:23, Alan Buxey wrote: It's just text at the bottom of your email. 1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was something like 10x longer than the comment! 2 its pointless. Its not enforceable and doesn't mean anything. Shall i put a chapter of war and

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Stephen Satchell
On 09/09/2015 06:36 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the bottom of your email. It's all about best practices. In an e-mail thread, where the thread grows

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Octavio Alvarez
On 09/09/15 06:36, Dovid Bender wrote: > I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does > it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's > just text at the bottom of your email. I've seen it in multiple languages (not necessarily on this list). Furthermore,

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Owen DeLong
e- > From: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> > Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30 > To: <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. > > On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Oliver O'Boyle
I love cat videos. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Dovid Bender wrote: > > I would. Once I see legal stuff I know to stop reading. It does not hurt > > anyone. Not sure why this hurts so much. Some things will remain a > > mystery. > > > > No mystery ...

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-09 Thread Justin M. Streiner
of authority... jms -Original Message- From: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. On 9/8/20

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-08 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote: > Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's > only a seething issue to you because you let it be. Curiously enough, the same thing was said about spam 30-ish years ago. The "ignore it and maybe it will go

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-08 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +, Connor Wilkins wrote: Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's only a seething issue to you because you let it be. Curiously enough, the same thing was said about spam 30-ish years ago.

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-07 Thread Connor Wilkins
On 2015-09-06 19:18, Scott Weeks wrote: It could be much easier. Folks that care about the mailing list rules, want to be courteous to list folks and want to use their company email, rather than one that inserts no disclaimer, could put 15 lines of blank as part of their signature. This would

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-06 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/6/2015 14:18, Scott Weeks wrote: --- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote: From: Robert Drake Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official end-of-signature flag. Then you could have procmail strip everything after the flag: - It

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-06 Thread Scott Weeks
--- larryshel...@cox.net wrote: From: Larry Sheldon On 9/6/2015 14:18, Scott Weeks wrote: > --- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote: > From: Robert Drake > > Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official > end-of-signature flag. Then you could have >

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-06 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/6/2015 11:46, Robert Drake wrote: Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official end-of-signature flag. Then you could have procmail strip everything after the flag: -- This is my signature My phone number goes here I like dogs -- end of signature --

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-06 Thread Robert Drake
On 9/4/2015 6:31 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: I, for one, feel your pain in this matter. When I was a consultant in The Bad Ol' Days, I had so many telephone numbers where I *could* be that my .sig would be a run-on one as well. As a compromise, I had my cell number and a hyperlink to a

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-06 Thread Scott Weeks
--- rdr...@direcpath.com wrote: From: Robert Drake Maybe people could adopt an unofficial-official end-of-signature flag. Then you could have procmail strip everything after the flag: - It could be much easier. Folks that care

Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-04 Thread Larry Sheldon
Y'all can stop thumping on me about it "because it is required by the employer". After contemplating my navel for a while, it dawned on me that my sensitivity is due to an old wound. Years ago, Faculty, Staff, Students, and myriad others more or less loosely connected with my employer

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-04 Thread Larry Sheldon
On 9/4/2015 14:40, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: There's quite a difference between the 'legal babble' and 'contact info' at the end of a message. What part of "required by employer" is different? I'm not seeing it. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-04 Thread Aaron C. de Bruyn
There's quite a difference between the 'legal babble' and 'contact info' at the end of a message. Regardless, my comment was meant for fun, not to upset you. -A On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > Y'all can stop thumping on me about it "because it is

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

2015-09-04 Thread Stephen Satchell
On 09/04/2015 12:32 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: As a defensive measure (among others) I crafted a .sig that contained all of the telephone numbers and email addresses by which I could be reached (included a pager number) 7 x 24 x 52 with (guaranteed) no more than 20 minute delay. It ran to 7