Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures
От | Andrew Hammond |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5a0a9d6f0706121508j31e43fa3te2731059858d097a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Avoiding legal email signatures
|
Список | pgsql-www |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/12/07, Tom Lane wrote: > A more serious objection is that any automated tool would probably get it > wrong sometimes, and strip important text. > > > I vote 'lets not bother' > > Right. I agree with Josh's idea about mentioning list policies in the > subscription confirmation message, though. 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? Saying that it's not applicable here implies that is is applicable elsewhere. To quote Ghandi "first they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win." I say we stick with the laughing. To that end, I propose should have a policy about being pelted with scathing sarcasm when the signal to boilerplate ratio drops below 10:1. Andrew -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGbxln+zlEYLc6JJgRAuaNAJsECSRrgIqR1f5c15P7OszVa34lVgCghWSb io55WHyChKGQVHCQ9R+z2ec= =KNyQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: