Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4959FA3B3;
	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:30:14 -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 18634-10; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:29:57 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
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 0408A9FA314;
	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:29:59 -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 l5CKTt3h026490;
	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:29:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures 
In-reply-to: <466EFF73.9080100@postgresql.org> 
References: <200706092214.l59ME0i06348@momjian.us>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0706101235050.1209@westnet.com>
	<20070610180414.GQ23679@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
	<200706121304.13914.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<466EFF73.9080100@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:17:55 +0100"
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:29:55 -0400
Message-ID: <26489.1181680195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200706/56
X-Sequence-Number: 12095

Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> The only additional idea I have is that we ought to simply strip away any 
>> e-mail footer over 4 lines from the archives.   Not only would this purge the 
>> confidentiality footers, it would save us some space in general.

> The effort it would take to write some code to extract the messages from
> the archive mboxes, break up the messages into their component parts,
> strip excess sig lines, reconstruct the messages, reconstruct the mboxes
> and then regenerate the archives would probably equate in dollar value
> to the disk space required for another 40 or 50 years worth of archives.

A more serious objection is that any automated tool would probably get it
wrong sometimes, and strip important text.

> I vote 'lets not bother'

Right.  I agree with Josh's idea about mentioning list policies in the
subscription confirmation message, though.

			regards, tom lane