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
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
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
: 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 for flaming
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:41:35 +0200, Harald Alvestrand
har...@alvestrand.no said:
HA Content-disposition: noise.
Or: Content-disposition: delete
--
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
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 and
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 for flaming, repetitive, responses to a topic on the IETF
list. One could also
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 of
On 14/Jul/11 18:37, Will McAfee wrote:
On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it 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
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:39:17 -0400, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
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,
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:39:17 -0400, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
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
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?
Ned
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:14 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com 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?
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 is
-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 email messages
If one starts
Marc == Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org 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
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
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net 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 the
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
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 otherwise, that
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 would of
They don't have legal value, period.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it 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
-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 of this
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;
--On Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:00 -0700 Randall Gellens
ra...@qualcomm.com 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
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. For example,
From: John C Klensin [john-i...@jck.com]
Randall Gellens ra...@qualcomm.com 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
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
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
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 all
-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 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 standardized
-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 Wednesday, July 13, 2011 09:38 -0700 Marc Petit-Huguenin
petit...@acm.org 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
-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
petit...@acm.org wrote:
...
Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be
standardized with their own MIME type to
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 were
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:
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 or
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
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
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, can
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
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
