A better response would be to send the stupid boilerplate (and only the
boilerplate, not the real message, or its headers) to the CEO (or corporate
lawyer, or similar) of the organisation that sent the message, along with text
something like...
I thank an employee of your organisation
Date:20 Nov 2009 05:36:18 -
From:John Levine jo...@iecc.com
Message-ID: 20091120053618.8729.qm...@simone.iecc.com
| But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with
| boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the
|
| But I have often been sorely tempted to return messages like this with
| boilerplate of my own explaining that since I cannot accept the
| sender's alleged restrictions, the message has been returned unread,
That's the wrong response, it achieves nothing, the person who sent the
message
Date:23 Nov 2009 10:54:09 -0500
From:John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com
Message-ID: alpine.bsf.2.00.0911231045140.12...@simone.lan
| You must know different CEOs and lawyers than I do. The CEO's secretary
| will send it to the lawyer, and the lawyer will say yes,
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected
Andrew,
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com wrote:
With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former
employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and
individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the
corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email
for my IETF work.
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected
With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list
regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures, I understand the community's
concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I'm sure
everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by
confidentiality obligations
Hi -
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected
Randy,
It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's email systems
to all outgoing mail.
d/
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use
Is every single RIM employee going to send this to the list?
EHL
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
With regard to the recent
FYI: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02914.html
On 2009-11-20, at 4:41, Randy Presuhn wrote:
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission
14 matches
Mail list logo
