Who isn't sick of those insipid legalese mumbo jumbo (Bullsh!t) disclaimers more and more litigation sensitive companies are requiring on all their email messages ? I am.. What a crock... To be legally binding, it would have to be agreed to by the reader before reading the message.

It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s).

Or it may not be, as my attorney noted. Correspondence between an attorney and his client is usually considered "legally privileged," but an e-mail from a Time Inc. wage slave to me? Not automatically. If the message is privileged or confidential, shouldn't Time Inc. let me know and not leave me dangling with the vague "may be" language? And when the disclaimer declares the message is "intended only for the use of the addressee(s)," to what "use" is it referring? Reading and burning it?

No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient.

Note the operative word, "should." My attorney says this is nothing more than a request—only a fool would consider it a binding contract.

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited.

My Samoan attorney says Time Inc. might have a case if the message contained a trade secret intended for a recipient other than me and I distributed it. But sending a confidential or valuable message via insecure e-mail is a funny way to preserve a secret. If Time Inc. wants to keep its communications safe, it should invest in some sort of encryption software that allows privileged readers to open the mail but prevents them from forwarding, printing, or otherwise duplicating it.

Ridiculous email legalese disclaimers