Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: > > The point was that your original message had 1 line of signal > > and 29 lines of noise. > > Um, the original email had a different person's name, different email > address, and different company disclaimer. The only similarities are > that it's in the same thread and has a long disclaimer. > A recent article by a guy that had his attorney look at Time's email > disclaimer, who found it to be legal nonsense, can be found at
My apologies. The original question containing a 1:29 SNR was by Mike Kenny, but the followup I was replying to was by Matthew Warren. However, Matthew's reply coincidently contained a good 25 lines of useless disclaimer spam as well, which is why it appeared to be the same person to my quick skimming. > <http://slate.msn.com/id/2101561/< > > That's not stopping a lot of companies from using them, though. That's a great link. I cannot understand what compels people to use these things. Actually that's not true, I can imagine the clueless managerial types dictating a "better safe than sorry" policy, even though the disclaimer is meaningless at best and ridiculous at worst. What ever happened to the internet where netiquette actually meant anything? You know, that whole thing about keeping signatures to less than 4 lines x 72 chars, not quoting entire messages, not sending HTML email to public lists, and so on? Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
