From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32260 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2007 13:38:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 32119 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2007 13:38:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:38:06 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id l35so1924360waf for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.75.1 with SMTP id c1mr5650205wal.1186407485104; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.91.12 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 06:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4aca3dc20708060638x2c39f3fcw892db0a4d76e1f3e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:38:00 -0000 From: "Daniel Berlin" To: overseers@sourceware.org, jifl@jifvik.org Subject: Re: questions about blocking disclaimers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070805053429.GA12910@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20070805184604.GA14471@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <46B64C27.102@jifvik.org> 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/msg00055.txt.bz2 On 06 Aug 2007 06:27:51 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Larmour writes: > > > 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 disbelieve that EU law requires you to add anything like "if you are > not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please destroy it." Those > are the problematic cases for us. > This is my cursory understanding as well (I am not an EU law specialist). I have seen laws in various EU countries that *do arguably require the place of business's address be listed*, but this is really different. > Ian >