he.net down/slow?

Martin Hannigan martin at theicelandguy.com
Sun Jan 10 02:09:24 UTC 2010

I never said otherwise. I did say that from a liability standpoint it
is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should
simply ignore it.



On 1/9/10, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> 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.
> Your attorney will likely advise you that boiler plate language between
> two people who have not previously agreed to honor it is unlikely to be
> interpreted as conferring benefit on the sender, and then invoice you
> for their time.
> Asserting privilege one does not in fact have is far from innocuous...
> but neither of us are lawyer's so this isn't advice.
>> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list