Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
Thanks
- Brian
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
It is up here.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
I believe he.net's primary data center is located in the east bay,
relatively near to the epicenter of this quake.
This was a small quake, but perhaps a plug got jostled loose during the
shaking. Or perhaps the quake is entirely unrelated to your issue.
Not down for me (Reno). I also have an IPv6 tunnel to fremont2 that
never went down.
> ...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate
between list and direct mail?
f
Bingo!
- Brian
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
I live & work virtually on top of the epicenter of the quake this morning
- -- it was pretty mild, but still caused some dish rattling, building
swaying, etc., but connectivity around the Bay Area seems to have not been
affected by it as far as I can tell.
That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too
stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call
"overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything,
all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore
Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have
any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message
that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of
"destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to
prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but
not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes,
and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but
as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'.
Valdis: 150,000. Not 70,000. Spread across four machines and eleven
partitions and 5 flash partions. Not mentioning the pool of a/v
scanners, the quarantine servers, the auth server, the five webmail
machines, or the OMR.
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
innocous.
Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords?
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
communication that should be covered by the NDA.
I can believe that such NDAs may exist, but I'm pretty sure I didn't
sign one as a condition of subscribing to nanog. In reality,
boilerplate confidentiality notices merely document the fact that a
mail system is in the grip of the clueless and/or confused.
R's,
John
As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they
are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal
rights.
I would be most interested in any case or statute law supporting this
utterly implausible assertion. I'm aware that there is a rule among
attorneys that they're not allowed to use material faxed from one to
another by mistake, but since this isn't fax and we're not lawyers, it
doesn't apply.
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
innocous.
Your attorney will likely advise you that boiler plate language between
two people who have not previously agreed to honor it is unlikely to be
interpreted as conferring benefit on the sender, and then invoice you
for their time.
Asserting privilege one does not in fact have is far from innocuous...
but neither of us are lawyer's so this isn't advice.
I never said otherwise. I did say that from a liability standpoint it
is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should
simply ignore it.
"confidentiality notices" are non-innocuous for recipients who pay per
kilobyte for data service, or who are frustrated by time wasted by
reading the long sig.
But they are such a popular fad, that it's pointless to debate their
real merits, or whether a sender 'should' include a notice.
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended
recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The
individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their
only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at
all.
There's little point in asking for (c), where the sender usually
doesn't have the option.
Organizations with "corporate policy" to use a standard e-mail sig on
all messages are probably blind to whether the notice is of any
effect, the corp. expensive lawyers used billable time to draft the
notice, so it could probably be useful, going forward: future
cost = ZERO, future possible benefit/protections = large...
Unless including the notice results in important messages getting
bounced to sender as rejected, don't count on the sender's org to
change policies, or make exceptions for list mail, even based on a
NANOG discussion....
