Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45C229FB1D8 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:23:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50940-07 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:23:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CE29FA6AC for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:23:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227] helo=phlogiston.dydns.org) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HxQCB-0000rj-Af for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:23:15 -0400 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0619C4050; Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:23:10 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Avoiding legal email signatures Message-ID: <20070610162309.GM23679@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <200706092214.l59ME0i06348@momjian.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706092214.l59ME0i06348@momjian.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/324 X-Sequence-Number: 104113 On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 06:14:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I know we have talked about how to avoid legal email signatures on this > list. One idea would be for a small percentage of our users to ignore > emails with a legal signature. I know I am less likely to reply to such > an email. The problem with that is that you ding people inside large corporations that are _trying_ to adopt PostgreSQL in the face of bad corporate policies (like "we standardise on product O" or "all outbound email gets garbage L appended"). Moreover, people who are in such environments are often prevented from visiting gmail, hotmail, or the other likely suspects in order to send their messages in circumvention of corporate policy. And remember, such people may not actually be able to prevent the signature going on by just ignoring policy -- often, it's added at the gateway on the way out of the server. I know they're irritating and stupid, but in the context of a mailing list they also have zero effect, because the mailing list address is explicitly public. I also know that they use extra space in the list archive, but if we attempted to purge the list archives of every worthless bit of nonsense in there, surely this wouldn't be the number one thing on the list (the semi-annual eruption of knee-jerk "threads are better" discussions probably take more room, for example). What we _could_ do, I suppose, is start mail-writing campaigns to legal departments in companies that insist on such disclaimers, pointing out the folly of their ways and asking that the policy be changed to distinguish between list-posting and non-list-posting accounts. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The plural of anecdote is not data. --Roger Brinner