On 07/20/11 09:22, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
Except that the other Content-disposition values express the sender's intent,
whereas this one expresses the receiver's [likely] perception.
In this case, we have to invent a cute backronym for it that expresses
the sender's intent what about N
Except that the other Content-disposition values express the sender's intent,
whereas this one expresses the receiver's [likely] perception. It might as
well be "Content-disposition: discard" -- no sender would ever generate it. In
contrast one could make at least a semi-serious case that by d
Content-disposition: noise.
Harald, I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Unless we're
prepared to talk about defining a general format for such notices (and I'm
pretty sure we're not interested in doing that), this doesn't fit as a media
type - I can easily envision using var
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:45:44AM -, John Levine wrote:
> It's clueless cargo cult lawyering.
+1, and see also:
http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/#legalistic
which reads in part:
"First, such boilerplate contains useless adhesions, meaning
the explicit an
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:41:35 +0200, Harald Alvestrand
> said:
HA> Content-disposition: noise.
Or: Content-disposition: delete
--
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ensin
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Randall Gellens; Marc Petit-Huguenin
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility for a
semantically-rich environment. For example, consider a noise
type f
39 AM
>> To: Randall Gellens; Marc Petit-Huguenin
>> Cc: IETF discussion list
>> Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
>>
>> If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility for a
>> semantically-rich environment. For example, consider a n
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> C Klensin
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:39 AM
> To: Randall Gellens; Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on e
>See http://www.out-law.com/page-5536
It says "There is no legal authority on the effectiveness of these
notices in email messages;" and "There is no legal authority on the
value of these notices in email communications. When the notice is
added automatically to every external communication, there
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:14 PM, wrote:
>> > Obviously we need to take a typical step back first and determine the
>> > scope of the problem. We need to commission a "requirements for noise"
>> > ID first.
>
>> Can we schedule a BOF? Perhaps a symbolic burning of notices?
>
> Wouldn't that be a
> > Obviously we need to take a typical step back first and determine the
> > scope of the problem. We need to commission a "requirements for noise"
> > ID first.
> Can we schedule a BOF? Perhaps a symbolic burning of notices?
Wouldn't that be a BON rather than BOF?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:39:17 -0400, John C Klensin
> > said:
>
> >> Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
> >> exhortations to not print the email.
>
> JCK> If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility f
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:39:17 -0400, John C Klensin
> said:
>> Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
>> exhortations to not print the email.
JCK> If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility for a
JCK> semantically-rich environment. For example, con
On 14/Jul/11 18:37, Will McAfee wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> One can sign the "Sensitivity" header field defined by RFC 2156. It
>> can have the values "Personal" / "Private" / "Company-Confidential".
>>
>> However, I received some messages bearing a confide
On Jul 14, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> It's excellent that the issue was covered in the RFC.
>
> My question is how the contents of that RFC can be binding on random IETF
> participants?
At the risk of answering a rhetorical question: It's being referred to in the
NOTE WELL.
All
> From: John C Klensin [john-i...@jck.com]
>
> Randall Gellens wrote:
>
> > At 6:19 PM -0400 7/13/11, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> >>Content-type: text/noise;
> >>noise-type="bogus-legal-disclaimer", charset=...
> >
> > Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
> > exho
>>> Content-type: text/noise;
>>> noise-type="bogus-legal-disclaimer", charset=...
>>
>> Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
>> exhortations to not print the email.
>
> If one starts down that path, there is a real possibility for a
> semantically-rich environment. F
--On Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:00 -0700 Randall Gellens
wrote:
> At 6:19 PM -0400 7/13/11, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>Content-type: text/noise;
>>noise-type="bogus-legal-disclaimer", charset=...
>
> Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
> exhortations to not pri
At 6:19 PM -0400 7/13/11, John C Klensin wrote:
Content-type: text/noise; noise-type="bogus-legal-disclaimer",
charset=...
Ooh, I like this proposal. We can also have noise-types for
exhortations to not print the email.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/14/2011 08:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 14/Jul/11 03:48, John Levine wrote:
>>> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
>>> standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing
>>> easier so receivers
They don't have legal value, period.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 14/Jul/11 03:48, John Levine wrote:
>>> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
>>> standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing
>>>
On 14/Jul/11 03:48, John Levine wrote:
>>Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
>>standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing
>>easier so receivers of this kind of notice (mailing-list or other)
>>can respect the wishes of the sender.
>
> That respect
On Jul 14, 2011, at 6:24 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 7/12/2011 2:36 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
>> You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses this issue:
>>
>> "Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
>> generated
>> automatically or ot
While these notices have very little to no legal weight whatsoever, I firmly
believe that allowing their presence on our mailing list invites frivolous
lawsuits whose purpose is to cost the IETF money in the case that an
individual does not like what we are doing. One does not need to look
particu
> "Dave" == Dave CROCKER writes:
>> You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses
>> this issue:
>>
>> "Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution,
>> whether generated automatically or otherwise, that states or
>> implies that th
On 7/12/2011 2:36 PM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses this issue:
"Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether generated
automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the Contribution is
confidential o
> "Marc" == Marc Petit-Huguenin writes:
Marc> No, I was serious. I think that the best response to this
Marc> kind of stuff is to do what they ask to the letter. If we can
Marc> convince the senders that annotating their notice with an
Marc> header will permit us to obey the
> John Levine wrote:
> It's clueless cargo cult lawyering. I blogged on it in January:
> http://jl.ly/Internet/confid.html
That tells me a lot about the competence of some lawyers. A law firm
asked me some time ago to implement a system on their MS Exchange server
to automatically add such disclai
>Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
>standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing
>easier so receivers of this kind of notice (mailing-list or other)
>can respect the wishes of the sender.
That respect would of course be demonstrated by rejecting o
>Ever since, I've wondered if these notices were set up by someone
>who is a lawyer and does understand the situation, or if they were
>set up by someone who saw others do it, or heard that this sort of
>thing was needed.
It's clueless cargo cult lawyering. I blogged on it in January:
http://j
Randall Gellens wrote:
>
> I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV or the net, so I likely
> don't understand the situation. As a point of possibly interesting
> information, once upon a time, at a training session held by a lawyer
> regarding how to protect confidential information, we we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/2011 03:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 09:38 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
>> standardized with their own MIME type to make a
On Wed Jul 13 23:19:00 2011, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 09:38 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
wrote:
>...
> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
> standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic
> processing easier so receivers of this kind
--On Wednesday, July 13, 2011 09:38 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
wrote:
>...
> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
> standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic
> processing easier so receivers of this kind of notice
> (mailing-list or other) can respect the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/2011 09:49 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 13/Jul/11 18:38, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> On 07/13/2011 06:50 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>> Barry, I think that we should put a filter on the ietf.org that bounces
>>> all messages with
On 13/Jul/11 18:38, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 06:50 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Barry, I think that we should put a filter on the ietf.org that bounces
>> all messages with confidentiality notices.
>
> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be standar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/2011 06:50 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Barry, I think that we should put a filter on the ietf.org that bounces
> all messages with confidentiality notices.
Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be standardized wit
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:39:49PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > "Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
> > generated automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the
> > Contribution is confidential or subject to any privilege, can be disregarded
> > for
Barry, I think that we should put a filter on the ietf.org that bounces
all messages with confidentiality notices.
I also think that we should enforce 77 columns max for text/plain when
there is no "format=flowed" option in the Content-Type.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of li
Hello Barry,
You wrote:
Hi, Jorge.
You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses this
issue:
"Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
generated automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the
Contribution is confidential or subjec
Randall Gellens wrote:
Barry,
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV or the net, so I likely
don't understand the situation. As a point of possibly interesting
information, once upon a time, at a training session held by a lawyer
regarding how to protect confidential information, we we
On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> Ever since, I've wondered if these notices were set up by someone who is a
> lawyer and does understand the situation, or if they were set up by someone
> who saw others do it, or heard that this sort of thing was needed.
The latter seems li
Barry,
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV or the net, so I likely
don't understand the situation. As a point of possibly interesting
information, once upon a time, at a training session held by a lawyer
regarding how to protect confidential information, we were admonished
not to sla
Hi, Jorge.
> You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses this
> issue:
>
> "Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
> generated automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the
> Contribution is confidential or subject to any privilege
Barry,
You may want to refer to Section 5.2 of RFC 5378, which addresses this
issue:
"Each Contributor agrees that any statement in a Contribution, whether
generated automatically or otherwise, that states or implies that the
Contribution is confidential or subject to any privilege, can be disreg
I am increasingly seeing IETF participants posting messages to IETF
mailing lists, sending messages to chairs and ADs, and so on, where
their messages include confidentiality/security/legal notices at the
bottom. You know the ones; here are excerpts from two recent
examples:
--
46 matches
Mail list logo
