Disclaimer Attachment- ONLY ONCE

[Julian Field]

I think this is the best solution so far. A little Custom Function that
looked at the Subject: to decide whether to add the sig or not should only
be about 5 lines of code at most.

On 26/10/04 2:01 am, "Marco Benton" <marco at XSSNET.COM> wrote:
> 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.

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

------------------------ 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).