On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 18:13, Grant Edwards wrote: > After all, that boilerplate just makes the corporation look stupid and > incompetent. Any email that leaves the corporate network must be > assumed to be visible to world+dog. Anybody who thinks differently is > deluded and should not be allowed access to information that is > "confidential and subject to privledge".
If every lawyer in the world benefits from the interpretation that this sort of notice is legally effective (since tomorrow it may be they who accidentaly send privileged information), who will argue in court that it's not? The reality is more complex, and it appears that it may only apply if the accidental recipient is a lawyer. I really can't say for sure, since _I'm_ not a lawyer, but posted without further comment: http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/technology/articles/winter2013-0213-do-email-disclaimers-really-work.html -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
