>> Yes, I do. If there is an explicit claim, like an email footer or a
>> copyright in the code, we do try to nail that down.
>
> AFAICT, the footer in question tries to make it illegal for us even to
> have the message in our mail archives. If I were running the PG lists,
> I would install filters that automatically reject mails containing such
> notices, with a message like "Your corporate lawyers do not deserve to
> have access to the internet. Go away until you've acquired a clue."
Well that would pretty much eliminate the ability to receive mail from
any large company :) but I can certainly appreciate the sentiment.
>
> I fully support Bruce's demand that patches be submitted with no such
> idiocy attached.
Absolutely. 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.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/