Since I play defense: Most competent financial institutions block webmail so that they can ensure inbound email passes through whatever they've set up to block attachments and spear phishing in order to defend their network (and your account information obviously) not because they care if their employees read a few personal emails. Outbound email through external providers is normally blocked because of record keeping requirements, (soxley etc) so all outbound traffic that passes through the internal mail server can be logged for regulatory purposes. The regulations vary between countries but that is more or less it. The obvious hole for doing personal and unmonitored email is to use a smartphone or tablet on the local 3G network. If Ruud was working in the US, then the other assertion that his legalese signature is worthless would be correct, as the courts have recently ruled on that in the US. That said, plenty of US companies continue to stick annoying legal signatures on outbound email in spite of their irrelevance. However, it may well have value in a different legal system so unless you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, be careful with your assumptions. Justin On May 30, 2011, at 16:34 , Jeremy wrote: > On 05/30/2011 11:45 AM, Jim Brain wrote: >> On 5/30/2011 12:49 PM, Ruud@Baltissen.org wrote: >>> >>> What puzzles me a bit is that this "ridiculous heap" has been >>> attached for years allready and you are the first one to complain >>> about it. >> I think we noticed it, but I know you can't turn that legal postscript >> off. I do think, for a number of reasons, getting a >> gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc. account to use instead of using a business >> account might be a good idea. >> >> Jim > > Just to prevent your job from snooping on what you like to do after work? > > Jeremy > > > > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2011-05-30 23:00:12
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.