They don't have legal value, period. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14/Jul/11 03:48, John Levine wrote: >>> Yes, and perhaps disclaimers/confidentiality notices should be >>> standardized with their own MIME type to make automatic processing >>> easier so receivers of this kind of notice (mailing-list or other) >>> can respect the wishes of the sender. >> >> That respect would of course be demonstrated by rejecting or >> discarding the mail unread, to avoid any possibility that it could >> fall into the wrong hands. > > Yes, with the possible exception of recipients deploying a Treacherous > Computing environment that includes checks against forwarding or > replying with non fair use quotations of confidential messages. > >> PS: Perhaps I should propose a revised RFC 5617 adding dkim=confidential. > > One can sign the "Sensitivity" header field defined by RFC 2156. It > can have the values "Personal" / "Private" / "Company-Confidential". > > However, I received some messages bearing a confidentiality notice but > missing this field entirely. Even the TC system above could hardly > cope with such inconsistent settings. Do notices still retain any > legal value in such cases? > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf