Darrell, Well, but if that protocol explicitly defines that something is NOT included at all, in fact, the very purpose of the BCC feature being to EXCLUDE it from transmission, then a plaintiff may be able to show a reasonable assumption that this is in fact true. (Not that I know what I'm talking about!)
Best Regards Andy Schmidt Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) Fax: +1 201 934-9206 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Legalities of adding header info > As far as the legal issues go, I would say there's equal > responsibility on his part to not "assume" that something he "thought > was confidential" actually is confidential, and on your part to inform > him of the change > would reveal potentially sensitive information in > the headers. One would think that you would NOT assume anything sent via email over the public internet would be considered confidential. That's just the nature of the protocol. Darrell ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out http://www.invariantsystems.com for utilities for Declude And Imail. IMail/Declude Overflow Queue Monitoring, SURBL/URI integration, MRTG Integration, and Log Parsers. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
