The thing that set me off this time was that this particular disclaimer, after wasting 1.3K and 280 words, actually provided a link to a website and a mailto: so you could view the *full* disclaimer.
This annoyed me so much, that I felt the need to use the provided mailto and contact the company about the fact that their disclaimer was stupid. Thing is, I forgot to mention the dumbness of providing a link after wasting a ton of time/space with text because there was so much else to pick on.
Here then, is my email to them.
I highly encourage anyone that feels inclined to take this text and use it as a template for your own response to stupid email disclaimers.
Maybe if enough of us bother administration (which impacts the bottom line by wasting *their* time for a change) they'll see the stupidity of the damn things and stop sending them.
Received: by 10.114.59.16 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:59:34 -0400
From: "Jason Ross"
Subject: a question about the XXX XXXXXXXX email disclaimer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hello. I have just received an email which was sent to a public mailing list, and which contained your company disclaimer at the bottom.
I read the disclaimer with some interest, and have a couple of questions/comments about it.
> The information in this email and any attachments
> is confidential. If you are not the named
> addressee you must not read, print, copy,
> distribute, or use in any way this transmission
> or any information it contains.
I am curious how one is to know what one should do if they are not not the "named adressee" ... as they (according to the disclaimer) should not then be reading the message, nor the disclaimer which is appended to it?
> If you have received this message in error,
> please notify the sender by return email,
> destroy all copies and delete it from your
and then later:
> It is your responsibility to scan this
> communication and any files attached for computer
> viruses and other defects
Forgive me if I am being obtuse, but does this not grant permission to use the transmission you formerly forbade one to "use in any way"?
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to your response.
btw: yes, i know i wrote "not not the named adressee" ... no need to ask. i never said i was perfect. just not retarded ;-)