[Qt-interest] [OT] Request to stick to the netiquette

[Stephen Jackson]

On 05/05/2009, Srdjan Todorovic  wrote:
> 2009/5/5 Stephen Jackson
>
>
>  > Since many disclaimers
>  > amount to "do not read this or act upon it", the ultimate author of
>  > the disclaimer gets precisely what they ask for - not what the victim
>  > wants.
>
>
> I think you are wrong here. If that was the case, then *no-one* would
>  be able to communicate between companies/clients/entities/communities,
>  because as you say, the disclaimer would instruct *everyone* to not
>  read the email.
>

This may surprise you, but I don't think I'm wrong, specifically in
the context of a mailing list, which is the context in which I made my
comment.

>
>  Where did you get the "do not read this or act upon it" from? These
>  usually come from the "if you are not the intended recipient" part of
>  the disclaimer. Since we can see the intended recipient from To: and
>  CC:, that clause does not apply.
>

Although by and large disclaimers are meaningless verbiage, they are
intended to carry legal weight. How do I know that I am the "intended
recipient" as defined by the relevant jurisdiction (whatever that is)?
First, the sender may have *intended* to send it somewhere else and
sent it to the list by mistake. How can I be *certain*? Second, the
message is not addressed directly to me, so it is a matter of
interpretation as to whether subscribers to a mailing list class as
"intended recipients". How can I resolve this area of doubt? Only by
asking either the sender's legal advisor or my own or a court. I am
not going to take any of those steps; better to shove the whole dross
into my spam folder and get on with something more interesting, such
as reading postings that do not carry this noise.

>  As for the list being public - anyone that accesses the public
>  archives, would in my oppinion, become an automatic recipient, even if
>  temporarily. Eg. I have a problem with class QFooBarZot. I search the
>  archives and see a post that fixes the problem but has a deisclaimer.
>  I'm automatically temporarily part of the Qt community at that moment,
>  and the disclaimer is automatically valid (at least for a short time).
>  That's just how I view it. Others will likely dissagree ;)
>

But does becoming an "automatic" recipient entail becoming an
*intended* recipient? Another trip to the courthouse to find out? I'd
rather not.

We are wandering too far off topic now. Let's just agree to differ.

Regards,

Stephen Jackson