On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:01 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> Michael J. Hartwick wrote:
>>
>> I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the
>> email
>> after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly
>> be considered enforceable.
>
> It might be useful to l
Michael J. Hartwick wrote:
I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email
after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly
be considered enforceable.
It might be useful to look at what some people in the legal business say
about these di
Hannigan [mailto:mar...@theicelandguy.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 18:28
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu; Brian Johnson; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: he.net down/slow?
>
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covere
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:54:09 CST, Joe Greco said:
> > 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
Joe Greco wrote:
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended
recipient.*destroy.*copies/siand be done with it.The
individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their
only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at
all.
Wow, a
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:54:09 CST, Joe Greco said:
> 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 "inte
> 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
> Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended
> recipient.*destroy.*copies/siand be done with it.The
> individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their
> only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at
> all.
Wow, are you implying
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, James Hess wrote:
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended
recipient.*destroy.*copies/siand be done with it.The
individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their
only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Martin Hannigan
wrote:
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
> would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
> globally to your email protects yo
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Martin Hannigan
wrote: >..
> is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should
> simply ignore it.
"confidentiality notices" are non-innocuous for recipients who pay per
kilobyte for data service, or who are frustrated by time wasted by
reading the
I never said otherwise. I did say that from a liability standpoint it
is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should
simply ignore it.
Best,
-M<
On 1/9/10, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
>> communic
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
> would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
> globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
> inn
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
innocous.
Don't them it if you don'
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:13:16PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
> > > On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > > ...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
> > > because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
> > On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > ...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
> > because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate
> > between list and direct mail?
> Bingo! ;)
That sort of gratu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, John Adams wrote:
> I'm in downtown SF and felt nothing.
>
I live & work virtually on top of the epicenter of the quake this morning
- -- it was pretty mild, but still caused some dish rattling, building
swaying, etc
>
> On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> > ...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
>
> because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate
> between list and direct mail?
>
> f
Bingo! ;)
- Brian
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, incl
I'm in downtown SF and felt nothing.
-j
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Mike Lyon wrote:
I think the he.net problems occurred before the quake...
-Mike
They did. I was looking at what it looked like from here when the
building started swaying.
Matthew Kaufman
---
Jo
Mike Lyon wrote:
I think the he.net problems occurred before the quake...
-Mike
They did. I was looking at what it looked like from here when the
building started swaying.
Matthew Kaufman
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate
between list and direct mail?
f
I think the he.net problems occurred before the quake...
-Mike
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:56 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> Brian Johnson wrote:
>
>> Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
>> http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
>>
>>
>
> We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the
JC Dill wrote:
> Brian Johnson wrote:
>> Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
>> http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
>>
>
> We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the SF Bay area at about 10:09 PST.
> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71336726
Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the SF Bay area at about 10:09 PST.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71336726.php
I believe he.net's p
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
> http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
Both are up here from both locations I'm bothered to try (business Comcast,
Net Access Corp MMU).
JS
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:30 -0600, Brian Johnson wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
> http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
>
> Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
It is up here.
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message,
no issues in Kansas City (area) via Internet2 at 12:10pm Central.
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or
http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
Thanks
No issues from Toronto area on an HE connection...
-Original Message-
From: Tim Burke [mailto:t...@tburke.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: he.net down/slow?
Can't access http://he.net from my location here in Chicago...
traceroute to h
Can't access http://he.net from my location here in Chicago...
traceroute to he.net (216.218.186.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 10.65.44.1 (10.65.44.1) 2.504 ms 1.039 ms 0.653 ms
2 * * *
3 te-2-3-ur04.romeoville.il.chicago.comcast.net (68.86.119.205)
13.648 ms 13.693 ms 13.477
29 matches
Mail list logo
