John Plocher wrote: > This will falsely trigger on conversations /about/ confidentiality > that are themselves not confidential.
No, I've checked. The false positive rate is very low. > The original rules were crafted to match Sun's information protection > policy, which dictates specific phrases and spellings. It was the > intent to be as open as possible while still CYA-ing ourselves. The original rules only check for the two phrases 'Sun proprietary' and 'Sun confidential', which isn't sufficient. They also don't check across line breaks. They also don't check inside compressed files. They therefore aren't sufficiently rigorous. > This new heuristic seems to be taking a small step away from that and > choosing to be much more closed. The primary goal is protect Sun's confidential information. If the cases are cleaned properly, there won't be an issue. -- Alan Burlison --
