[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       konq-e
Subject:    OT: RE: Confidentiality
From:       warren.moore () anthropics ! com
Date:       2002-08-28 14:30:11
[Download RAW message or body]

Posting to public mail lists is fine with our policy and the signature as a
public mail list is the intended recipient. UK law may be restrictive but
not to the point that an email signature can be counted as an implied
contract of confidentiality with all the recipients, particularly given that
the contract is unsolicited.

Unfortunately, signatures like this had nothing to do with the restrictive
policies on UK mail archives. That was down to the demon case where an
archive was held responsible for the libellous postings it archived (like a
newspaper/publisher) yet couldn't protect the details of its source (unlike
a newspaper/publisher). British companies do have a lot of clout if you
email anything nasty about them...

I'm surprised you haven't seen more of these overweight corporate
signatures? Mine was quite small in comparison to some I've seen, but I
shall not attach it to these posts as I didn't and don't intend to discuss
anything confidential :o)
Cheers,

Warren

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Chitescu [mailto:Paul.Chitescu@IMC-Group.org]
> Sent: 28 August 2002 14:31
> To: konq-e@mail.kde.org
> Subject: Re: Confidentiality
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <warren.moore@anthropics.com>
> To: <konq-e@mail.kde.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 3:42 PM
> Subject: RE: Confidentiality (was: Part/plugin development?)
> 
> 
> > Hey hey, I'm pretty sure that if the intended recipient is 
> a public mail
> > list then any implied confidentiality does go out the 
> window, although
> I'll
> > leave it off if it annoys you (will apologise in advance if 
> I don't - it's
> > on by default and a pain to remember).
> > As for the sig, you're preaching to the choir but corporate 
> policy must be
> > obeyed, and bad policies aren't exactly UK-specific.
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Warren
> 
> Does this kind of corporate policy allow you to post here? I 
> doubt so. If
> your policy requires you not to discuss anything publicly 
> then your place is
> not here. I hope it was just a mistake in adding the wrong 
> signature text.
> In this case you may consider using some form of disclaimer text.
> 
> Unfortunately stupid laws have provided ways for companies or 
> persons to
> request withdrawal of their messages - something technically 
> difficult or
> unfesable without major disturbance. As a result most lists 
> now require that
> posters are registered and they explicitely drop any rights 
> regarding their
> posts. In UK - which now has a MUCH tougher legislation - 
> they had to drop
> from the lists anybody who did not agree with the new rules.
> 
> We probably should do the same to prevent future claims.
> 
> --
>  Paul Chitescu
>  pchitescu@null.ro   http://pchitescu.null.ro/   ICQ:22641673
>  Any spammers will be painfully squeezed into /dev/null
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> konq-e mailing list
> konq-e@mail.kde.org
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/konq-e
> 
_______________________________________________
konq-e mailing list
konq-e@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/konq-e
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]