[121080] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: he.net down/slow?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Hess)
Sat Jan 9 22:07:32 2010
In-Reply-To: <d99aaed41001091809s48294c32u4106fb49c15bdf61@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 21:05:37 -0600
From: James Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Martin Hannigan
<martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote: >..
> 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....
--
-J
