Who, Me? According to this site, the #1 reason to include a disclaimer at the end of company email is to reduce company responsibility. Yup, that's what we need these days, fewer people taking responsibility for their words and actions. Italics mine, head-in-the-sand approach theirs ...

• "The most a disclaimer can accomplish in this respect is to reduce the responsibility of the company, since it can prove that the company has acted responsibly and done everything in its power to stop employees from committing these offenses."
  
• "If a company can show that it has correctly instructed its employees not to send libelous, inappropriate or defamatory statements this could help in disclaiming responsibility if an employee breaches these rules.
  
• "The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments."

Bloody Ridiculous: Those wacky Brits. Here are the top UK sites tracking the best - worst? - of email and Web disclaimers ...

• Jeff Goldberg's list of stupid disclaimers
  
• The Register's 2001 email disclaimer awards
  
• Ashley Pomeroy's best corporate disclaimers
  
• Parodies of stupid email disclaimers

Why Bother: Are email disclaimers – especially typical "this is intended for the intended recipient" stipulations – useful? Or even enforceable? This well-researched page seems to answer a resounding NO, based on a few important precepts ...

1. Disclaimers have little legal value: The UK's Weblaw site admits, "The value of disclaimers is limited, since the courts normally attach more weight to the substantive content of the communication and the circumstances in which it is made than to any disclaimer."
   
2. Disclaimers may prevent emails from reaching the right person: Jeff Goldberg says, "There are many cases where the sender of a message hopes that the message will get passed on to the appropriate person (who may not be explicitly addressed in the message), yet if the disclaimer is to be taken seriously that can't be done." Wouldn’t these disclaimers also prevent press releases and newsletters from being redistributed to the right people?
   
3. Disclaimers tend to be vainly contradictory: Goldberg says, "So on the one hand, if I am not the recipient I am told that I cannot act on information in the message. On the other hand, I am instructed to take particular actions in that case. One could, I suppose, say that the disclaimer doesn't apply to itself."
   
4. Disclaimers require mind-reading: How would anyone – except the sender – know the "intended recipients?" All we can tell from the email is who the addressees are – in other words, who the actual, not intended, recipients are. And anyway, if the sender knows who the recipients ought to be, why not just send the email to them?

Notify THIS: The stuffshirts at the "not-for-profit" retirement fund company TIAA-CREF (2001 profit: $585 million) actually think the phrase "you are hereby notified" is a good thing to tag onto the end of every outgoing email. Italics mine, arrogance theirs ...

"This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited."

Loyalty Above All: There's nothing like warm fuzzy feelings with a new employer, especially when the HR monkeys at Biltmore Estate put this disclaimer in the job ad. Guess which direction "at will" termination normally goes ...

"Disclaimer: North Carolina is an 'employment-at-will' state and therefore Biltmore Estate and our employees each have the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time, without specified notice."

Risky Business: What's this? Business involves risk? Uncertainty? Rapid change? Unpredictable sales cycles? I guess the lawyer pinheads at SCC thought the company's PR people should spell it out for us. Words theirs, italics mine ...

"The matters discussed in the second through eighth paragraphs of this press release include forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may vary significantly from the SCC's expectations based on a number of factors, including (1) lengthy sales cycles associated with SCC's and LPSS's services and products, (2) reliance by SCC and LPSS on large contracts from a limited number of significant customers, (3) potential difficulties in integrating the personnel and operations of the two companies, (4) continuing rapid change in the telecommunications market that may affect LPSS and SCC and its customers, (5) continuing demand for SCC's and LPSS's services and products, (6) market acceptance of new products and services introduced by SCC and LPSS, (7) SCC's and LPSS's ability to accurately predict its costs related to new products, and (8) additional factors described in SCC's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2000."

BIG PROMISE, Small Disclaimer: From an email to San Francisco Examiner employees, sent by executive editor Zoran Basich in February 2002. Wouldn't a "plummeting economy" be a good reason for a layoff anyway? Capitalization from the original note ...

"It is important to keep this message in mind: NO MORE LAYOFFS ARE PLANNED FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. Excuse the slight disclaimer -- you never know what kind of Act of God or further-plummeting economy will jump up and bite you."