nanog mailing list archives
RE: he.net down/slow?
From: "Michael J. Hartwick" <hartwick () hartwick com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:47:29 -0500
I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly be considered enforceable. I thought most NDA's required willing acceptance by both parties before it could be considered valid, a message at the bottom of the email that I have not agreed to should not be considered a valid contract. That is kind of like putting the software license agreement inside the box and the only way to get to the agreement is to open the shrink wrap, but opening the shrink wrap is your acceptance of the agreement. If you put the "warning" at the top of the email before what you are trying to protect I *might* be more likely to believe it could be enforced. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Hartwick, VE3SLQ hartwick () hartwick com Hartwick Communications Consulting (519) 396-7719 Kincardine, ON, CA http://www.hartwick.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:martin () theicelandguy com] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 18:28 To: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu; Brian Johnson; nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: he.net down/slow? 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? Best, -M< On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:...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?Bingo! ;)That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software istoostupid 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 oneverything,all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost alwaysignoreReceived: headers because they're on every message and very rarelyhaveany useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on amessagethat *matters*, it will still get ignored....) Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costsof"destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughlytoprevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include,butnot be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backuptapes,and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deletedbutas yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)-- Martin Hannigan martin () theicelandguy com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Current thread:
- Re: he.net down/slow?, (continued)
- Re: he.net down/slow? joel jaeggli (Jan 09)
- Re: he.net down/slow? Martin Hannigan (Jan 09)
- Re: he.net down/slow? James Hess (Jan 09)
- Re: he.net down/slow? goemon (Jan 09)
- Re: he.net down/slow? Joe Greco (Jan 10)
- Re: he.net down/slow? JC Dill (Jan 10)
- Re: he.net down/slow? William Herrin (Jan 09)
- Re: he.net down/slow? Joe Greco (Jan 10)
- Re: he.net down/slow? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 10)
- Re: he.net down/slow? Joe Greco (Jan 10)
- RE: he.net down/slow? Michael J. Hartwick (Jan 11)
- Re: he.net down/slow? JC Dill (Jan 11)
- Re: he.net down/slow? William Herrin (Jan 11)
- Re: 4.1 earthquake in SF Bay region (was Re: he.net down/slow?) Seth Mattinen (Jan 07)
- Re: 4.1 earthquake in SF Bay region (was Re: he.net down/slow?) Mike Lyon (Jan 07)
- Re: 4.1 earthquake in SF Bay region (was Re: he.net down/slow?) Matthew Kaufman (Jan 07)
- Re: 4.1 earthquake in SF Bay region (was Re: he.net down/slow?) John Adams (Jan 07)
- Re: 4.1 earthquake in SF Bay region (was Re: he.net down/slow?) Paul Ferguson (Jan 07)