dns interceptors [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Robert Bonomi bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Sat Feb 13 13:40:20 CST 2010


[ getting afield from 'operational' issues, off-list responses recommended ]

> From: Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:43:17 -0500
> Subject: Re: dns interceptors [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> On February 13, 2010 at 12:12 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) wrote:
>  > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:02:48 +0800, "Wilkinson, Alex" said:
>  > 
>  > > IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence Organisation 
>  > 
>  > Have fun trying to enforce that after posting to a public mailing list
>  > in North America, with recipients all over the world. Care to cite any
>  > relevant legal basis for the claim that would hold outside Australia?
>
> I know I'm an idiot to respond to this BUT part of the implication of
> copyright ownership is:

Note well that the 'disclaimer' is claiming ownership of the email _ITSELF_, 
Not just to the intellectual property rights to the contents of the message.

This claim _is_ inconsistent with the 'established body of law' in any juris0
diction that holds to the 'doctrine of first sale'.

[[.. sneck ..]]

> IANAL, but it doesn't strike me as half as preposterous as you say.

What would you think about a notice on a flyer that showed up in your 
_snail-mail_ mailbox that said "this document remains the property of
XYZ Marketing, PLC. -- you must retain it, and return it to us upon 
demand" ?

Absent an _agreement_ (in avance!) between the parties, _any_ such
bombast in email (or snail-mail, for that matter) is -- at *best* --
a CYA attempt by the sender against a claim _against_the_sender_ of
a lack of due care in handling potentially sensitive material.  The
presense of such statements in a message -- in the absense of advance
agreement to terms -- has absolutely _no_ effect with regard to what
the recipient 'may' do with the message, or it's contents.  Any claims
to the contrary are; (a) attempts to bamboozle the uninformed, (b)
mandated by those who do -not- understand the law on the matter, or (c)
included for 'self-protection' -- in the off-chance 'hope' that in the
event of an actual screw-up on the sender's part, the presense of that
claim will mitigate their liabilty.  TTBOMK, this premise has -never-
been tested in court, so the effacicy of the approch is an open question.
OTOH, if 'everybody else' _is_ doing it, one can be accused of 'negligence'
for not following the 'best practice' of rest of the sheeple.  <wry grin>







More information about the NANOG mailing list