more inane confidentiality notices, was he.net down/slow?
martin at theicelandguy.com
Sun Jan 10 02:05:05 UTC 2010
Well, sure. So don't read the notice then.
The point is that rather than try to enforce agreements individually,
automatically slapping the notices on is not so unreasonable all
While it may be annoying, its not baseless. It certaintly isn't
useless in discovery.
On 1/9/10, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
>> communication that should be covered by the NDA.
> I can believe that such NDAs may exist, but I'm pretty sure I didn't
> sign one as a condition of subscribing to nanog. In reality,
> boilerplate confidentiality notices merely document the fact that a
> mail system is in the grip of the clueless and/or confused.
>> As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they
>> are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal
> I would be most interested in any case or statute law supporting this
> utterly implausible assertion. I'm aware that there is a rule among
> attorneys that they're not allowed to use material faxed from one to
> another by mistake, but since this isn't fax and we're not lawyers, it
> doesn't apply.
Martin Hannigan martin at theicelandguy.com
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
More information about the NANOG