Re: [HACKERS]

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> ... In regards to your idea of a filter, there is no reason why
>> we couldn't install a filter that checks for signatures with specific
>> legal words and strips said signature automatically, responding to the
>> sender that we did so.
>
> The problem is that if $SENDER's corporate lawyers actually think that
> it means something to put a restriction-of-rights notice on a message
> sent to a public mailing list, then they might think that posting the
> message with the notice stripped represents a violation of their barren
> intellectual property :-(. What I'd like us to do is bounce it back.
> A slightly cleaner version of the notice might be "If you wish to post
> this message on our worldwide mailing lists, and thereby make unrepaid
> use of our redistribution and archiving resources, then you may not
> assert the right to restrict redistribution of your message."
>
> Not that I think that anyone owning both a law degree and a computer
> in 2007 should legitimately be able to plead innocence here. FAST
> Australia's lawyers are making themselves look like idiots, and the
> same for every other company tacking on such notices. I think the
> real bottom line here is "we don't accept patches from idiots".

I think "we don't accept patches from idiots" is a bit harsh.
There are quite a few skilled developers out there working for large
companies that are not doing most of their day-to-day business with OSS
software(and therefor know how to interact with the community).
Working in such a large environment requires one to use the tools and
infrastructure provided by the company - while I fully agree that email
sigs are one of the more stupid things it is often something the
individual person might not even know about (gets added at the gateway)
or can do much about it.

Stefan