> 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.
