To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
cc: Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com>,
	Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures 
In-reply-to: <466F1AD4.6050901@commandprompt.com> 
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> <26489.1181680195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<5a0a9d6f0706121508j31e43fa3te2731059858d097a@mail.gmail.com>
	<466F1AD4.6050901@commandprompt.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:14:44 -0700"
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:35:59 -0400
Message-ID: <27782.1181687759@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
>> Why? If the legal mumbo-jumbo has already got some precedence as being
>> un-enforcable (even if it's only in a handful of jurisdictions), why
>> give it even a patina of credibility by addressing it in a policy?

> It is always a good idea to document against stuff like this, just in case.

If push came to shove, which I sure hope it never does, being able to
say "you agreed to these terms of use of the mailing lists" would be
an excellent defense.  They'd have to argue "that's not binding because
we didn't legally agree", whereupon we could reply "sure, and your
disclaimer is equally not binding because we didn't agree to it".
Whereupon they slink away quietly.  Without such a reply they might
manage to get a court to listen for awhile before throwing them out.

If there's anything I've learned about matters legalistic, it's that
it's always better to have more than one line of defense.

			regards, tom lane