This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Advocacy

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Peter A. Castro wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > >> At my place of work, access to free e-mail websites is blocked, so the only
> > >> e-mail I can send is via my official account. This adds the disclaimer you
> > >> see at the bottom. I can't prevent that. You can ignore it very easily, and
> > >> delete this message if the disclaimer offends you. No, I don't mention you
> > >> by name but yes, you are an intended recipient of the message.
> > >
> > >I feel that you should review their responses to you, determine if they
> > >are truely striking out at you because of your companies policies, and
> > >respond back.  Yes, email them back!  Make them put their money where
> > >their mouths are and justify their complaints.  Anyone who really
> > >participates on this list will tell you that they back up every word with
> > >something stronger than just fist waving.  If they can't or won't, then
> > >just ignore them.
> >
> > As someone who publicly commented on this ludicrous disclaimer, let me just
> > note that I fully understand that people who post to the list have no
> Ah ha!  Soooo, it was you! You, CGF, who caused Sheridan such strife! :)
> > control over the disclaimers.  However, if you take them at face value
> > you could easily come to the conclusion that the sender could be in violation
> > of company policy or, worse, could be assuming that you are implicitly
> > accepting their policies.
> His companies disclaimer was actually quite sparse, compared with some of
> the people who post from the really big companies, or from some of the
> government facilities (at least, those who are *allowed* to post :).  I
> am curious, though.  Was it just the general sense of the disclaimer that
> caused you to comment, or was there something in particular in it that
> tweeked you?
> > I am sorry for suggesting that people should contact this company to
> > talk about the disclaimer.  I thought that maybe if enough people contacted
> > the proper authorities they might be able to help institute a change.
> > I wasn't suggesting that anyone contact the original sender to complain
> > since it is clear that they have no power over this.
> Let that be a lesson to you.  Only use your powers for good, not evil!
> > I've previously floated the idea of filtering out these disclaimers on
> > the overseers at sources dot redhat dot com mailing list and no one thought
> > it was a very good idea.  So my threat to do so was just an idle one.
> (mumble...something about "bark" and "bite"...mumble...:)
> Is this OT now?
> > cgf


I believe the complaints were mostly about the *size* of the disclaimer,
not about its content.  The content is reasonably standard and pretty
redundant, IMO.  Which is why I proposed a way for people to allow
filtering it out (by including, say, an "--IGNORE-LONG-DISCLAIMER-BELOW--"
line in their signature).
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor at watson dot ibm dot com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]