From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14556 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2007 22:16:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 14337 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2007 22:16:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:16:14 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id l75MGBT24849 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:16:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.7.9] (unknown [87.127.20.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970F93FE1 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 23:16:09 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <46B64C27.102@jifvik.org> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:16:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: questions about blocking disclaimers References: <20070805053429.GA12910@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20070805184604.GA14471@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20070805184604.GA14471@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 01:34:29AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> As many people know, I'm working on modifying the spam filter software >> so that it will block email which contains unenforceable company >> disclaimers. I've been surveying the archives for samples of >> disclaimers to seed the spam blocking regex. I'd like to be able to >> include the match that triggered the disclaimer bounce so that people >> can see what is causing the problem but that may increase the size >> of the bounce. Is that ok, though? >> >> Here's what I have for the bounce message right now: My only thought is that this might be sudden and dramatic for some people, who may find it difficult to remove them. Can it temporarily accept the message (with a warning that they will be rejected entirely soon), and after a month, we change it so we do reject them? Out of interest I have had long arguments in my workplace about such disclaimers, and it has been alleged that EU Data Protection law (as applied in the UK at least) pretty much requires that any mail sent from a business (including any employees) has to include them. It was a hard fight to prevent them being added to all our email, and allegedly omitting them is being done at some risk to the company directors. I doubt this should change the policy, but it does show that the only solution people may have is not to post from their work at all, so giving them time to arrange an alternative would some reasonable. I think the text of the bounce is fine (for when things do get dropped). Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine