Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980C89FB510 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 15:33:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76384-01 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 15:33:13 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5449FB4D2 for ; Sat, 19 May 2007 15:33:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4JIXDEH015026; Sat, 19 May 2007 14:33:13 -0400 (EDT) To: Lew cc: pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org Subject: Against legal disclaimers in email In-reply-to: References: <463E67EF.5080905@herakles.homelinux.org> Comments: In-reply-to Lew message dated "Fri, 18 May 2007 08:43:41 -0400" Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 14:33:12 -0400 Message-ID: <15024.1179599592@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/931 X-Sequence-Number: 114126 [ redirected for a wider audience ] Lew writes: > John Summerfield wrote: >> Penchalaiah P. wrote: >>> Information transmitted by this e-mail is proprietary to Infinite >>> Computer Solutions >> >> It may be proprietary, but it shore ain't confidential! > Placing "confidential" on every document without regard for its > content, especially when some of it's publicly disseminated, can > remove the protection of confidentiality at law from all such marked > documents in many jurisdictions, including the U.S. There must be > discrimination applied in the marking of information as > "confidential". > Quite aside from the foolishness you pointed out of marking something > "confidential" then placing it into the public eye in an archived > forum where it will be visible by everybody forever. > Now we can publish everything ever written at or by Infinite Computer > Solutions without fear of liability. Wow, that is a great argument that I've not seen before. The only way we'll ever make a dent in the plague of legalistic disclaimers auto-attached to email is if we can convince corporate lawyers that there is a downside *to them* of insisting on the damned things. This is the first argument I've seen that there might actually be a serious legal downside to the practice. Can you cite chapter and verse to back up this position? It'd be great to have a well-reasoned FAQ document that people could just automatically send to anyone exhibiting this folly ... regards, tom lane