>It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's >email systems to all outgoing mail. Many non-attorneys' mail, too, as in this case. Yes, it's silly: as far as I can tell, confidentiality claims like this are entirely unenforcable in the US except in a few arcane situations that only apply to messages from one attorney to another. It's just another example of pseudo-legal nonsense running amok. 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, and since I have no way to evaluate the sender's status relative to the party applying the notice, disclaimers in a message saying to ignore the boilerplate won't help. R's, John >>> From: "Andrew Allen" <aallen@xxxxxxx> >>> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >>> 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 by the >>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public >>> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, >>> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information >>> from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction >>> of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and >>> may be unlawful. >> ... >> >> This is just plain silly. Or is it willful ignorance of the "Note Well" terms? _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf