he.net down/slow?

Mon Jan 11 19:47:29 UTC 2010

I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email
after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly
be considered enforceable. I thought most NDA's required willing acceptance
by both parties before it could be considered valid, a message at the bottom
of the email that I have not agreed to should not be considered a valid
contract. That is kind of like putting the software license agreement inside
the box and the only way to get to the agreement is to open the shrink wrap,
but opening the shrink wrap is your acceptance of the agreement. If you put
the "warning" at the top of the email before what you are trying to protect
I *might* be more likely to believe it could be enforced.

Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Hartwick, VE3SLQ                      hartwick at hartwick.com
Hartwick Communications Consulting                      (519) 396-7719
Kincardine, ON, CA                             http://www.hartwick.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:martin at theicelandguy.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 18:28
> To: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu; Brian Johnson; nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: he.net down/slow?
> 
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covered by the NDA.  As much as everyone
> would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
> globally to your email  protects your legal rights. It is also
> innocous.
> 
> Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords?
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
> >> > On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
> >> > > ...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
> >> > because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate
> >> > between list and direct mail?
> >
> >> Bingo! ;)
> >
> > That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is
> too
> > stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call
> > "overwarning".  Just sayin'.
> >
> > (Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on
> everything,
> > all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always
> ignore
> > Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely
> have
> > any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a
> message
> > that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
> >
> > Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs
> of
> > "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly
> to
> > prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include,
> but
> > not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup
> tapes,
> > and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted
> but
> > as yet not overwritten.  Just sayin'. ;)
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Martin Hannigan                               martin at theicelandguy.com
> p: +16178216079
> Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and
> Occupants