This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: "Peter A. Castro" <doctor at fruitbat dot org>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:05 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Advocacy
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
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!
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html