[145391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Telus mail server admin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 7 13:02:43 2011
To: Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:40:39 -1000."
<4E8F1D77.5080008@paulgraydon.co.uk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:00:29 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1318006829_9306P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:40:39 -1000, Paul Graydon said:
> Which I do. But note the original complaint was not about using
> ridiculously long disclaimers on a mailing list, it was about the
> ridiculously long disclaimer, full stop.
If your corporate policy insists on huge disclaimers regarding confidential
information on e-mails sent to public maling lists, it's busticated, pure and
simple.
And unless somebody can cite actual statute or case law where such a blanket
disclaimer made an *actual difference*, the policy *in general* is busticated.
Yes, I know that it *does* matter for *some specific* content. But the only
case law I know of was one judge who (in an unfortunately non-precidential way)
said the fact that a company felt the need to put a blanket disclaimer on all
the e-mail was doing itself a dis-favor, because it tended to indicate that the
company had no clue or control over what content was in fact privileged or
confidential.
--==_Exmh_1318006829_9306P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOjzAtcC3lWbTT17ARAvJdAKDp6bevvprm+Lgxx3TsGaT3ZQNIxwCfZdbp
rqVDwzkgLrbHCVpt7gsOv3s=
=6YpU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1318006829_9306P--
