Auke Kok sofar at
Thu Oct 13 23:26:08 CEST 2005

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:

>Hash: SHA1
>On 10/13/2005 1:31 PM, Auke Kok wrote:
>>I'm going to add another entry to the Xfce ML FAQ withg roughly the 
>>following contents:
>I'm against this, for the following reasons:
>1.  They actually do have legal meaning in some jurisdictions, though
>it's somewhat useless when posted to a mailing list with several hundred
>recipients and a public archive.

Nonsense, you cannot disclaim the law in any country. Not even the USA.

If they did have legal value obligating me to do something with it then 
the end of mailinglists will be near, very near.

>2.  Some company mail servers (like the one where I work) automatically
>append the disclaimer to outgoing email, so there's nothing people can
>do.  Though I'd argue that people shouldn't be posting here from their
>work email, unless their question is related to their job, but whatever.

which is why the perfectly fine suggestion to use another form of e-mail 
known as webmail will help. There are alternatives plenty, and this one 
IMHO really helps.

>3.  Refusing messages is a bit harsh, and while yes, you are the server
>admin, this isn't your mailing list. If you want to implement this
>policy for the Lunar lists, that's certainly your prerogative.  I don't
>see why we need to be such jackasses about it.

I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm trying to get through to people. I'm 
always a bit harsh up front - lenient later. My work as a sysadmin 
required that - things get pretty messy if you allow everything and 
never say "no".

I added this to try to get through to people - if you never tell them 
they will never know. If you ask them nicely once they might listen and 
that sure helps everyone.

>4.  Bandwidth is cheap.  (Yes, really, it is.)  If we can't handle a net
>increase of a few hundred kB per month (or even, to be conservatively
>outrageous, a few tens of MBs) due to a few disclaimers on emails from
>the mailing lists, we're in trouble.  The bandwidth is donated, anyway,
>so it's not like you can point to someone specifically (not even Remco)
>and say they're being financially hurt by silly disclaimers at the
>bottom of emails.

You're obviously using the American standpoint on conservation here - 
"We should save energy but I can still drive my SUV right?". Same goes 
for bandwidth - every bit helps.

>5.  As long as the disclaimers are at the bottom, and preceeded by a
>signature, or at least the sender signing their name, I have no problem
>finding content in the message.

they end up in quoted threads all through the posts, sometimes 3 or 4 
times. Yes people should trim their posts but having less to trim helps.

>6.  Sometimes they make me laugh.

you must be the only one laughing, it's not even an old joke anymore.

>7.  I'm sure there's a #7, and possibly a #8 and #9, but I'm lazy.

for me the bottom line is: don't unless absolutely unavoidable - if you 
really must post from your corporate account and it attaches a 
disclaimer then so be it... but please - try to be nice first? That's 
all I ask from people.

That's also why I posted it and why I want to include the text (in this 
or a different form) in future Xfce ML FAQ mails. The FAQ content is 
surely up for discussion, and I think that including some guidelines 
regarding e-mail disclaimers is a really healthy thing to do.


More information about the Xfce mailing list