Email Disclaimers

[Roger Oberholtzer]

Matthew Carpenter <matt at eisgr.com> wrote: 
>On Friday 27 May 2005 02:54 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
>> Seriously, I think the only purpose is that if you are found incorrectly
>> in possession of an e-mail that contains this text, you cannot say you
>> did not know. However, I doubt that this would ever hold up in court
>> when it is blindly applied to all e-mails. How, then, do you tell if
>> this is one you should have or one you should not have? Also, many of
>> these e-mails contain attachments and reply-text that do not belong to
>> the company putting the little blurb at the bottom. So it is not even
>> clear which parts can really be applied to the disclaimer.
>
>Actually, if it is tagged to *every* email, it is considered a policy, and
>
>that alone is worth traction in a court of law.  As opposed to someone 
>willy-nilly tagging some of their email.  The courts are not like
>computers.  
>They (while I often put little faith in them) actually attempt to dig into
>
>details, and care about things such as intent.  A qualified lawyer (note
>that 
>I did not use the word "good") can make good use of all of these things.

Is it so clear? There must be some difference if I take something (active 
initiation on my part) as opposed to someone else giving me something (no 
active participation on my part at all).  This fact that I do nothing active
to cause receipt of the message is in line with how some laws dealing
with SPAM are written.

--

Roger on assignment in sunny Riyadh.