On 14/Jul/11 18:37, Will McAfee wrote: > On Jul 14, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? > > They don't have legal value, period. It is still an argument that one can bring before a court, e.g. when claiming damage for unauthorized disclosure of confidential data. We all know that misaddressing can (and does) happen. Stating that a message is confidential might be worth in certain circumstances. See http://www.out-law.com/page-5536 The point is that the semantic status of a message should be set by the sender, properly. It does not scale to leave it up to the recipients to determine whether any possible notice is harmless, inapplicable, or out of context. Laws may allow it, protocols less so. -- *NOTICE* Access to this text is restricted to people having the right to do so. -rwxrwxrwx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf