[Mailman-Users] Sub-lists

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Peter Shute writes:
 > Ron Webb wrote:

 > > I will also wish to add some type of disclaimer that no one 
 > > will probably give it much thought, but it will state that 
 > > statements made are the of the sole responsibility of the 
 > > author of the statement and they are not the official opinion 
 > > of the corporation nor the union and the maintainer of the 
 > > list does not archive messages. I'm sure I'll come up with 
 > > much better wording than that but I'm sure you get the gist.
 > 
 > This part could be tricky. Most list members will "save"
 > (i.e. forget to delete) at least some if not most of the messages
 > they receive. Lots of them will contain quoted material written by
 > other list members. In other words, none of you will have much
 > control over how much of what you say on the list will be available
 > to others later if they get access to list members' mailboxes.

That's certainly true, but I suppose Ron is mostly worried here about
his *personal* liability as list admin, both legal and ethically to
the members whose posts are supposed to be off-the-record.  Compare
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html.  Centralized list archives are
an obvious target, and I suspect that subpoena'ing everyone in the
company would be less likely to convince a judge.

 > Are these corporate mailboxes you'll be using, or private ones?
 > I've never used it, but you can have regular expression in ban_list
 > to prevent people subscribing with their work addresses.

That's a good idea for dealing with corporate policy toward mailbox
use, but as Jamie points out, if there's a court involved, anything
can be subpoena'ed.

Of course all of the above is based on US law, your venue may vary.