Irony! Schadenfreude!

[fanf]

This has to be the funniest support request I have seen in a long time. How can I reply without making sarcastic comments about there obviously being no problem because the user's stupid email disclaimer tells the recipient to delete the embarrassing message? Extra points, of course, for sending an "urgent" message after 17:00 on a Friday.

[fx: fanf files off the serial numbers]

Help!

I wonder if you can help me please. I have sent an email to someone by mistake. It has confidential information on it that the recipient shouldn't see.

[...]

This e-mail (together with any files transmitted with it) is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or the organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain information which is strictly confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail (or telephone) and delete the original message.

Comments

[knell.livejournal.com]

*applause*

Best example of a pointless disclaimer EVAH!

[hypatia.livejournal.com]

But is it their footer by choice or added by their group? I've worked on a number of company sites where they add very similar 'footers' to their mails which along with my job title tend to result it ribald comments coming back when I have to go through their email servers...

Its also pretty common for users to think that email can be retracted - they mostly seem to get this impression from the 'retract mail now' options on Outlook. Another reason to burn it to ashes.

[fanf]

This user uses Mulberry, which is a fairly sane user agent. The disclaimer was set up by the user (or perhaps the local support staff) in Mulberry.

As far as I know, the bits of the University that are afflicted with this disease are using our email servers, so they have to configure the stupid disclaimers in the user agents. I suppose that allows sensible users to do the right thing...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Just to check, the [...] identifies the email sent, and that they do have a cambridge address? :)

If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

In fact, you apparently weren't allowed to convey it to the recipient in the first place!

[aldabra]

> Its also pretty common for users to think that email can be retracted

Presumably particularly so in Cambridge, because back on Phoenix until the mid-nineties Eagle would let you retract if the recipient hadn't accepted it yet.

[fanf]

I would expect people who can still remember that feature to have sufficient technical nous to understand that it hasn't been possible for over ten years.

[the-warwick.livejournal.com]

"for the use of the individual(s) or the organisation to whom it is addressed."

But... it was addressed to the recipient who received it, that's how email works.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

not if the recipient then forwarded it on or left it lying around.

[nassus.livejournal.com]

Ah but when we get people saying that its usually because they've accidently replied to the sender instead of forwarding to a friend and added something snarky about the sender. Disclaimer doesnt help when you're offending someone *grin* and its *always* an emergency!!!

[senji.livejournal.com]

Of course, Outlook does have a feature that looks much like mail retraction...