[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 463
From: Anthony Howe
Date: 2005-04-04 04:14:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Disclaimer Milter

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
--------------------------------------------------------

Grant Taylor wrote:
> Does any one have any idea as to which RFC might talk about the
> implied disclaimer?  I'd be very interested in reading it.  I'll
> search for it some day in my copious free time, but if I knew which
> one to read so I did not have to spend the time searching through all
> the email related RFCs I might get to it sooner.  I think all of us
> understand what is meant by a project that will be gotten to some
> day... *BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* ...pardon pager, you get the point.

I've been trying to find it, but its not easy. Every RFC document has a 
disclaimer in it so trying to find reference to information about the 
practice of including a disclaimer, etc. is proving difficult.

It also might be in the newsgroup FAQ and netiquette documents, though 
I'm having trouble finding those too.

While searching though, I was reminded of another reason NOT to add 
disclaimers to email messages. Consider encrypted or digitially signed 
messages. If you add a disclaimer to those messages, then you will have 
tampered with the message and the signature will be considered invalid. 
The disclaimer would have to be included by the author in such a case.

So far I can find lots of sites and legal opinion pieces extoling the 
vertures of email disclaimers, but cannot the particular document (which 
I believe is one of the early RFCs) explaining how there is an implied 
disclaimer in email and newsgroup postings.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

RFC 1855 briefly mentions system administrator guildlines about 
including disclaimers in .sigs. Yet in the same document they mention 
email signatures should be kept short to about 4 lines.

I think I found it. This might be it in RFC 1855 section 3.1.1:

     - Assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they
       say does not represent their organization (unless stated
       explicitly).

Not very strongly worded, but I think its clear and to the point.

After reading RFC 1855, its amazing how much things have changed and how 
many people have no concept of netiquette.

-- 
Anthony C Howe                                 +33 6 11 89 73 78
http://www.snert.com/       ICQ:
7116561         AIM: Sir Wumpus

"held in my arms / his sun washed face / eyes closed" - Anthony

Lists Index Date Thread Search