* Confidentiality notices @ 2004-01-28 15:04 Ian Lance Taylor 2004-01-28 16:17 ` Christopher Faylor 2004-01-28 16:28 ` fche 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2004-01-28 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. Any thoughts on whether we should check for these notices on incoming mail, and bounce them back to the sender? Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 15:04 Confidentiality notices Ian Lance Taylor @ 2004-01-28 16:17 ` Christopher Faylor 2004-01-28 16:39 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-28 16:28 ` fche 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2004-01-28 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:04:22AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices >which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. > >Any thoughts on whether we should check for these notices on incoming >mail, and bounce them back to the sender? I've suggested that in the past. This is one of the reasons that I modified the sources.redhat.com mailing list web page to mention the fact that the lists are archived. I don't know of gcc.gnu.org has any wording to this effect, though. With recent changes to the spam checking software, I can do filtering on email. For instance, on the cygwin mailing list, I added the capability to subscribe to a cygwin-replyto mailing list. Once you are a member of that list, all email to the cygwin list has a reply-to added automatically. I also add a "X-IsSubscribed: yes" header when senders are subscribed to the list so that you can make a decision on whether to cc or not. I was contemplating honoring some kind of tag in the body like: END-OF-MESSAGE so that people could avoid sending the confidentiality stuff. That would put the onus on the sender to make the decision about what shows up in email and in the archives. Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 16:17 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2004-01-28 16:39 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-28 18:08 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-28 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:04:22AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices >> which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. >> >> Any thoughts on whether we should check for these notices on incoming >> mail, and bounce them back to the sender? Yes, please! Less for legal reasons, than to make a statement. > I've suggested that in the past. This is one of the reasons that I > modified the sources.redhat.com mailing list web page to mention the > fact that the lists are archived. I don't know of gcc.gnu.org has any > wording to this effect, though. http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html has Please do not include or reference confidentiality notices, like: The referring document contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we request that you notify companyname immediately. Such disclaimers are inappropriate for mail sent to public lists. If your company automatically adds something like this to outgoing mail, and you can't convince them to stop, you might consider using a free web-based e-mail account. > Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain > confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. Feel free to start doing so for the GCC lists right away, at least as far as I'm concerned. ;-) Unconditionally. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 16:39 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-28 18:08 ` Christopher Faylor 2004-01-28 18:18 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2004-01-28 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: overseers On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:04:22AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices >>> which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. >>> >>> Any thoughts on whether we should check for these notices on incoming >>> mail, and bounce them back to the sender? > >Yes, please! Less for legal reasons, than to make a statement. > >> I've suggested that in the past. This is one of the reasons that I >> modified the sources.redhat.com mailing list web page to mention the >> fact that the lists are archived. I don't know of gcc.gnu.org has any >> wording to this effect, though. > >http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html has > > Please do not include or reference confidentiality notices, like: > > The referring document contains privileged and confidential > information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not > disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it, and we request > that you notify companyname immediately. > > Such disclaimers are inappropriate for mail sent to public lists. If > your company automatically adds something like this to outgoing mail, > and you can't convince them to stop, you might consider using a free > web-based e-mail account. That's great wording. I'm going to put it in the sources.redhat.com page, too. Hope that's ok. (and apologies for not just taking 10 seconds and checking for this myself) >> Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain >> confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. > >Feel free to start doing so for the GCC lists right away, at least as >far as I'm concerned. ;-) Unconditionally. Should we get a steering committee vote on this? cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 18:08 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2004-01-28 18:18 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-03-01 22:21 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-01-28 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Faylor; +Cc: overseers On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html has >> [...] > That's great wording. I'm going to put it in the sources.redhat.com > page, too. Hope that's ok. I believe the wording is due to Joe Buck, and it's definitely okay to reuse it. >>> Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain >>> confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. > Should we get a steering committee vote on this? To be on the safe side, I just sent a message asking whether there are any objections. I'm curious how RMS is going to respond -- he might actually love the idea! Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 18:18 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-03-01 22:21 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2004-03-01 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Faylor; +Cc: overseers On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>> Once we do that, I could easily start bouncing messages which contain >>>> confidentiality trailers. FWIW, I really hate them. >> Should we get a steering committee vote on this? > To be on the safe side, I just sent a message asking whether there are any > objections. I'm curious how RMS is going to respond [...] Okay, I think we have clearance to go ahead as you suggested (and start bouncing messages with confidentiality trailers). Here is the main remark from the SC dicsussions: (1) The bounce message will be very clear regarding the reason for the bounce and point to a page on the GCC (or FSF) website explaining why it is considered unacceptable. Taken literally they have violated some privilege to even send to the list and forbidden their email's inclusion in an archive. Following that argument, we are just doing what they asked. :) But educating here is a good thing. I guess referring to http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html#confidential should be sufficient. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) gerald@pfeifer.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 15:04 Confidentiality notices Ian Lance Taylor 2004-01-28 16:17 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2004-01-28 16:28 ` fche 2004-01-28 16:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: fche @ 2004-01-28 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers ian wrote: > I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices > which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. > [...] Are you sure that "we are violating" something? The typical verbal diarrhea warns not to send stuff beyond the intended recipients. Has someone put forward a plausible interpretation that applies even when the intended recipient is a public mailing list? (My impression is that we should expend no effort on issue, and let the notices speak for themselves about the originator's silliness.) - FChE ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Confidentiality notices 2004-01-28 16:28 ` fche @ 2004-01-28 16:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2004-01-28 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: fche; +Cc: overseers fche@redhat.com writes: > > I've noticed several e-mails recently with confidentiality notices > > which we are violating when we archive the message on the web site. > > [...] > > Are you sure that "we are violating" something? The typical verbal > diarrhea warns not to send stuff beyond the intended recipients. > Has someone put forward a plausible interpretation that applies > even when the intended recipient is a public mailing list? (My > impression is that we should expend no effort on issue, and let > the notices speak for themselves about the originator's silliness.) No, I'm not sure. However, the most recent notice I saw said this: **************************************** Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender at mailadmin@isofttech.com immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. **************************************** It was addressed to gcc@gcc.gnu.org. It seems clear that anybody on that mailing list is an addressee. However, we have now put this message on the web: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-01/msg02087.html It seems clear that any random person on the web is not an addressee of the message. Those people are in principle required to notify isofttech.com and destroy the message. It's true that probably no lawsuit could succeed here. But I'm not comfortable with the situation. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-01 22:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-01-28 15:04 Confidentiality notices Ian Lance Taylor 2004-01-28 16:17 ` Christopher Faylor 2004-01-28 16:39 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-28 18:08 ` Christopher Faylor 2004-01-28 18:18 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-03-01 22:21 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2004-01-28 16:28 ` fche 2004-01-28 16:40 ` Ian Lance Taylor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).