[techtalk] Re: legal signature

Tomlinson, Molly MTomlinson at rational.com
Mon Nov 6 18:22:17 EST 2000

FYI: The one time I've seen a legal disclaimer this long and detailed on the
bottom of a message, it wasn't voluntary on the part of the sender. She
worked for a rather controlling company who appended the same ridiculous
disclaimer to every employee message sent out. Basically, she didn't *have*
the option of deleting it off the bottom of her message.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lyric . [mailto:lyric340 at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:02 PM
> To: techtalk at linuxchix.org
> Subject: [techtalk] Re: legal signature
> I have to agree,  I do technical support for a small softwre 
> company in 
> Ontario and I keep seeing these huge long "this doesn't apply 
> to a dmna 
> thing here but I'm too lazy to delete it from the bottom of 
> my mesage" 
> signature files.
> That has to be one of my biggest annoyances when doing email 
> support, that 
> and the fact that the people on the other end have a tendency 
> to lie when 
> asked to upgrade a device driver.
> But anyway, bakc to this sig file, not only is it annoying, 
> but technically, 
> if we had to adhere to signatures, this entire string, and 
> every message 
> that you've ever posted would have to be removed from the 
> online archives.
> Come on, wake up when sending email, and put some thought into it
> >Message: 2
> >From: "Lillis Long" <lrlongx at nrst.net>
> >To: <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
> >Subject: RE: [techtalk] (no subject)
> >Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:07:51 -0800
> >charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >I realize that this may not be the appropriate place to ask 
> this question,
> >but why would you send out an email with a tag line like 
> this? i mean, if
> >the information is really that sensetive then why isnt it 
> encrypted and/or
> >at least sent with a pgp signature. It just seems like all 
> your doing is
> >harrasing/annoying whoever happens to get the email. Why in 
> the world would
> >i even bother with a message like this if it wasnt intended 
> for me? Im not
> >going to go through the effort of errasing all copies on my 
> hard drive when
> >ii dont eve know who sent it.
> >
> >Oh well, maybe im just weird, It seems so futile.
> >
> >Lillis(Sorry if my ranting in unwaranted)
> >
> >*************                    Confidentiality Notice
> >This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer.  It 
> is intended
> >exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is 
> addressed.  This
> >communication may contain information that is proprietary, 
> privileged or
> >confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.  
> If you are not
> >the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, 
> retain, copy or
> >disseminate this message or any part of it.  If you have 
> received this
> >message in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
> e-mail and delete
> >all copies of the message.
> >
> >
> >

More information about the Techtalk mailing list