Does anyone know of any cases where these disclaimers have actually been
tested in court. Since they are really a case of Horse -> Bolted ->
Stable Door my money is on them not being of much value other than as a
frightener. It might be more appropriate for a brief statement as to
copyright to be added, as I don't think that copyright is necessarily
implicit in all jurisdictions.
When you think about it, you could always bill the sender for the
additional unnecessary traffic that you have to pay for, and the
message itself could also be considered to be a threat. (8-)
--
Howard.
______________________________________________________
LANNet Computing Associates <http://www.lannet.com.au>
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, David Fisher wrote:
>
> >
> > My initial response when these appear on the list is to think that as it
> > is not addressed to me, I'm not going to help with the problem. After
> > all,people who put that sort of warning on their messages might be more
> > likely to sue me if any advice I give doesn't solve their problem. Tend
> > to think it goes against the spirit of Linux, open source, free
> > software, etc
> >
>
> Now looky here. This is a completely unfair statement. These disclaimers and/or
>threats concerning misdirection are automatically added to outgoing mail by the
>system and users have no control over it.
>
> The poor sods are more deserving of sympathy with living with the embarrassment of
>having this twaddle added to their mail without their consent. It is only a matter
>of time before I will be so afflicted at work.
>
> Living with a filtered/interferred-with/monitored corporate email system is a total
>PITA but it is a reality for many people. I use mine at work as little as possible
>privately. Don't take it out on us.
>
> David (sending from home where the email police can't get me (yet)).
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
