Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:50:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Avoiding legal email signatures
In-Reply-To: <20070610162309.GM23679@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0706101235050.1209@westnet.com>
References: <200706092214.l59ME0i06348@momjian.us>
	<20070610162309.GM23679@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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.

This is all true, but the reality here is that people in such a situation 
are usually flat-out violating their corporate policy by posting to the 
list at all from inside this kind of company.  By allowing it, you're 
encouraging them to do something they may very well get into trouble for. 
I've watched more than one attempt to sneak open-source source into a 
large enterprise get completely blown away because unapproved mailing list 
involvement to resolve issues became associated with making corporate 
information public.

Ever watched someone get fired for responding to "can you post your config 
file?" in an environment where that's a clear violation of corporate 
policy?  I have.

> What we _could_ do, I suppose, is start mail-writing campaigns to legal 
> departments in companies that insist on such disclaimers

The best reaction to this issue is to kick it back with apologies to the 
person who wants help.  They're in a better position than you to 
straighten out the incompatiblity of their corporation with the 
requirements of a public mailing list.  You may very well be doing them a 
favor to point out the concern rather than continuing a dialog with them.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD