Disclaimer Attachment- ONLY ONCE

[Marco Benton]

<x-flowed>
to play devil's advocate...

alot of companies use the <...barf...> disclaimers and MailScanner has
an easy way to add it, although not what inteded for.  not every company
has gurus and pointy-haired managers want certain things even tho they
dont make sense.  but is it right to *not* add that feature because of
l-users?

i once wrote a Sendmail milter to add a disclaimer, before i found
MailScanner, and all i decided to do was append the disclaimer if it
wasnt a reply or forward.  pretty easy.  i'm sure if the poster wrote a
rule regex on the subject he can avoid the disclaimer being added so
many times.

BOFH excuse #361: The cause of the problem is: Plasma conduit breach




Matt Kettler wrote:

> At 07:33 PM 10/25/2004, Venkata Achanta wrote:
>
>> Sorry may be i have to change the subject line to attract ppl to read my
>> message. I apologize if this is an incovenience for some of you.
>
>
> no inconvenience, but I don't see how this would be possible with
> MailScanner.
>
> MailScanner's "sign clean messages" feature is intended to have an notice
> that a message was virus scanned, not a legal disclaimer. Although many
> (use|abuse) it for this purpose.
>
> In the context of it's real purpose, it makes no sense for MS to "only
> add
> it once", as the virus scan would have to apply to each message
> separately,
> so should the signature stating there was a scan.
>
> To change it, Julian would have to add a bit of code to look for the
> signature (possibly with added line-wraps and >'s added) before
> inserting it.
>
> Quite frankly, I hope Julian doesn't add a "only once" feature, in the
> interest of encouraging people to not use MS for the purpose of adding
> legalese spam to all of their email.
>
> (Just as I wish he'd remove the bounce mis-feature, but he's at least
> decided to put a few hoops in before you can enable this dangerous
> feature,
> and I'm thankful for that much.)
>
>
>> >if someone sends out a e-mail and get a repsonse and if he responds
>> again
>> >the disclaimer is getting attached again.if this happens X number of
>> times
>> >we end up having disclaimer attached X number of time as well which
>> looks
>> >ugly(better than spam though :-)) )
>
>
> Quite frankly, I feel that bulk-disclaimer-attachers are *worse* than
> spammers.
>
> They aren't even selling anything, they're just inserting garbage in
> email
> to cover their hind ends in the event of a  misdirected email by a
> careless
> employees. And quite frankly, I seriously question if the 'this
> message may
> be legally privileged' disclaimers even offer much, if any, useful legal
> protection. So not only are they selling nothing, they are also saying
> nothing of value, just wasting space on the world's disk drives to keep
> some high-level manager happy. Wonderful.
>
> For that matter, re-posters who cannot even wait 6 hours before reposting
> the same message with a different subject might be better suited by
> exercising a little patience.
>
> ------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
> To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
> 'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
> Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
> the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).
</x-flowed>