> 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 material (including material protected by the
>> solicitor-cl
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.
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.
>It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's
>email systems to all outgoing mail.
Many non-attorneys' mail, too, as in this case.
Yes, it's silly: as far as I can tell, confidentiality claims like
this are entirely unenforcable in the US except in a few arcane
situations tha
