On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote: >..
is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should simply ignore it.
"confidentiality notices" are non-innocuous for recipients who pay per kilobyte for data service, or who are frustrated by time wasted by reading the long sig. But they are such a popular fad, that it's pointless to debate their real merits, or whether a sender 'should' include a notice. Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at all. There's little point in asking for (c), where the sender usually doesn't have the option. Organizations with "corporate policy" to use a standard e-mail sig on all messages are probably blind to whether the notice is of any effect, the corp. expensive lawyers used billable time to draft the notice, so it could probably be useful, going forward: future cost = ZERO, future possible benefit/protections = large... Unless including the notice results in important messages getting bounced to sender as rejected, don't count on the sender's org to change policies, or make exceptions for list mail, even based on a NANOG discussion.... -- -J