> A better response would be to send the stupid boilerplate (and only the
> boilerplate, not the real message, or its headers) to the CEO (or corporate
> lawyer, or similar) of the organisation that sent the message, along with text
> something like...
>
> I thank an employee of your organis
Date:23 Nov 2009 10:54:09 -0500
From:"John R. Levine"
Message-ID:
| You must know different CEOs and lawyers than I do. The CEO's secretary
| will send it to the lawyer, and the lawyer will say "yes, that's what I
| told them to do",
You mean, to give away
| But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with
| boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the
| sender's alleged restrictions, the message has been returned unread,
That's the wrong response, it achieves nothing, the person who sent the
message usua
Date:20 Nov 2009 05:36:18 -
From:John Levine
Message-ID: <20091120053618.8729.qm...@simone.iecc.com>
| But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with
| boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the
| sender's alleged
>> From: "Andrew Allen"
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
>> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
>> ...
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>> information, privileged m
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former
employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and
individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the
corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email
for my IETF work.
Andrew,
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
>
>
> With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list regarding
, disclaimers in a message saying to
> ignore the boilerplate won't help.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>>>> From: "Andrew Allen"
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
>>>> Subject: Regarding RIM's recen
FYI: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02914.html
On 2009-11-20, at 4:41, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> From: "Andrew Allen"
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
>> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
&g
Is every single RIM employee going to send this to the list?
EHL
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
With regard to the r
gt;>> To:
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
>>> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
>> ...
>>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>> information, privileged material (including material
Randy,
It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's email systems
to all outgoing mail.
d/
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: "Andrew Allen"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This tra
Hi -
> From: "Andrew Allen"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material pr
With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list
regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures, I understand the community's
concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I'm sure
everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by
confidential
14 matches
Mail list logo
