Actually that's not a great idea. A notice that the recipient is expected to handle information with unusual attention to confidentiality is required by law to stand out so that there isn't any ambiguity about the duties demanded of the recipient. Trade secret cases have been lost because a sender relied on the email boilerplate, the recipient produced intentionally public emails with the same boilerplate, and the recipient asserted that he had no reason to believe the particular message was any more sensitive than the sender's routine public messages.
The use of the words "intended recipient" are also extremely problematic; by definition, if it is addressed to me, I can be construed as being the "intended recipient." If I then turn around and forward it to you, you are now also an "intended recipient." Nice, eh. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.