Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Jul 2 05:07:07 CEST 2015
Peter Shute writes:
> Ron Webb wrote:
> > I will also wish to add some type of disclaimer that no one
> > will probably give it much thought, but it will state that
> > statements made are the of the sole responsibility of the
> > author of the statement and they are not the official opinion
> > of the corporation nor the union and the maintainer of the
> > list does not archive messages. I'm sure I'll come up with
> > much better wording than that but I'm sure you get the gist.
> This part could be tricky. Most list members will "save"
> (i.e. forget to delete) at least some if not most of the messages
> they receive. Lots of them will contain quoted material written by
> other list members. In other words, none of you will have much
> control over how much of what you say on the list will be available
> to others later if they get access to list members' mailboxes.
That's certainly true, but I suppose Ron is mostly worried here about
his *personal* liability as list admin, both legal and ethically to
the members whose posts are supposed to be off-the-record. Compare
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html. Centralized list archives are
an obvious target, and I suspect that subpoena'ing everyone in the
company would be less likely to convince a judge.
> Are these corporate mailboxes you'll be using, or private ones?
> I've never used it, but you can have regular expression in ban_list
> to prevent people subscribing with their work addresses.
That's a good idea for dealing with corporate policy toward mailbox
use, but as Jamie points out, if there's a court involved, anything
can be subpoena'ed.
Of course all of the above is based on US law, your venue may vary.
More information about the Mailman-Users