"scanning" e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]

Fri Aug 20 14:34:31 UTC 2004

On Aug 20, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

> i got told otherwise, but again this hasnt been tested in a court by 
> me. i
> forget the exact detail in the conversation but it was comparing the 
> disclaimer
> to what you get in regular mail.. so things like confidentiality, 
> opening an
> attachment meaning you agree to things are allegedly okay.

Maybe the UK is different than the US.  But if I get something 
addressed to me in the mail (dunno about it if it was addressed to 
someone else and accidentally delivered), it is MINE.  Period.  If I 
did not order it, too damned bad, I get to keep it, it's a gift.

Bringing this back on topic, IFF that can be extended to e-mail (and my 
understanding is that it can), the disclaimer is worthless - at least 
the part about having to delete it.  There is some question about 
whether I can post it publicly (as you saw earlier), and I don't have 
the motivation to test it in court, but I certainly feel perfectly 
comfortable reading the contents of the e-mail and any attachments, and 
doing whatever I like with the information, baring limitations set by 
any previous agreements (e.g. NDAs).

Would anyone care to correct me on this?  IANAL, and don't even play 
one on TV. :-)

> as you say tho this cannot be extended to some things such as by 
> reading this
> you owe me $1m etc but the reasonable and logical bits are allegedly 
> enforceable
> to some degree

Unclear on why telling me I have to delete something you sent me is 
logical.  Just the opposite, in fact.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick