On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > If you read the confidentiality notice, you'll see that it merely says > > that the contents of the email _may_ be confidential. Also, it warns > > people who _aren't_ the intended addressees -- but if the message was > > sent to a public email list then obviously there are no such people. > > > > So I don't see any problem. > > Then I guess you missed this unconditional part?: > > "be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this > e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. " > > This means that victor is deliberately violating his company policy by > continuing to send emails to a public list, which is the direct action > causing disclosure, copying and distribution of the e-mail. You can of > course not blame list admins or subscribers here. > > I still do not see how a patch with such restrictions can be useful to > anyone. But I am not the one to decide that... This is wrong, partly because you are quoting out of context and partly because of a grammatical error in the original notice. Here's the text with the context retained: If you are not the intended addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee). be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. It is clear, from the lack of capitalization of the word "be" and the fact that the preceding text is only a sentence fragment, that the period following the close-parenthesis was meant to be a comma. Therefore this prohibition applies only to people who are not meant to be reading an open mailing list -- and there are no such people. This means that victor did not violate any policies. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
