Re: Software Defined Networking
On 9/4/2015 09:40, Rod Beck wrote:
Can anyone provide references on this top so I can educate myself?
This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
All of that for 11 1/2 words? Ineducable. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
I think it's time to change my SMTP greeting to: 220-By submitting e-mail to this server, you agree all legal disclaimers are null and void. 220 You also agree that I am awesome. -A On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 9/4/2015 09:40, Rod Beck wrote:
Can anyone provide references on this top so I can educate myself?
This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
All of that for 11 1/2 words?
Ineducable. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 10:57:26 -0700, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" said:
I think it's time to change my SMTP greeting to:
220-By submitting e-mail to this server, you agree all legal disclaimers are null and void. 220 You also agree that I am awesome.
Does anybody have a citation that legal disclaimers attached to publicly posted mail aren't null and void? Seems to me that what they're trying to say is "Sorry, we're too lame to use PGP or similar on actually sensitive e-mail"...
hi valdis On 09/04/15 at 06:59pm, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Does anybody have a citation that legal disclaimers attached to publicly posted mail aren't null and void? Seems to me that what they're trying to say is "Sorry, we're too lame to use PGP or similar on actually sensitive e-mail"...
i keep wondering why "they" keep using sniffable clear text smtp/imap/pop3 instead of at least encrypted version the problem also is both ends, the sender and the receiver and all the laptops/desktops need to be configured more importantly, why not just use https based webmail or even smpts encrypted google mail where less setup and configuring would be needed for sender and receiver have a nice weekend alvin # # DDoS-Mitigator.com #
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:59:36PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Does anybody have a citation that legal disclaimers attached to publicly posted mail aren't null and void?
Disclaimers are invalid on their face because they're an attempt to unilaterally enforce contractual terms without a meeting of the minds -- something required for a valid contract. They're "adhesions", i.e., they're provisions so one-sided that it's immediately obvious that they've been dictated by one side and not agreed to by both as the result of some kind of bargaining or negotiation. The two best references I'm aware of in this regard are: Stupid E-mail Disclaimers and the Stupid Users that Use Them http://attrition.org/security/rants/z/disclaimers.html Quoting in part: "We can't help it--this really makes us nuts. When will these people learn? You transmitted your crappy mind-numbing message to us, in plain text, over the public internet. It's ours (and whoever is sniffing our mail) to do with as we please and you can't have it back, so piss off. We won't delete it, we will publish it, we will forward it, and there is nothing you can do about it. Go ahead, take us to court, but try to find a shred of legal precedent first, ok?" and: Don't Include Bogus Legalistic Boilerplate. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/#legalistic Quoting in part: "First, such boilerplate contains useless adhesions, meaning the explicit and implied threats they make are particularly annoying. If you send something via email, the recipients (are you sure you aren't sending to a mailing list?) and anyone else who sees your clear text postcard in transit can undetectably and with full deniability do whatever they want with the information written on it in plain view. Even casual users of email know email is not a secure communications medium. Thus the threats in typical bogus legalistic boilerplate are naught but an attempt at highly improper intimidation. Demands made in this manner will be regarded as evidence of a hostile attitude on your part by a significant portion of recipients. The threats will negatively affect how your recipients perceive the other ideas in your message." ---rsk
I've taken to sending such mail back with a note "message deleted at your request". The more urgent the question, the better. R's, John
participants (6)
-
Aaron C. de Bruyn -
alvin nanog -
John Levine -
Larry Sheldon -
Rich Kulawiec -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu