IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 15 July 2011 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752EE21F8AEA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qt8ZDtjbxOzF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DED21F8AF0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O3O60SOY5C00X1AD@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O3O39SAX4W00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01O3O60PAEKG00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:14:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:08:11 -0700 (PDT)" <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107150906590.16878@egate.xpasc.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <CAC4RtVBGgk74VMEty9u5Yq+DFy=oR5tOnbZ3R5x83Gyee6mRNw@mail.gmail.com> <29987.1310565058@marajade.sandelman.ca> <4E1DCA13.9030301@acm.org> <04AE56F0C4CE8168D1B38D59@PST.JCK.COM> <p0624066dca44df0ca50f@loud.pensive.org> <49A68144182BB270C11BC841@PST.JCK.COM> <sdlivza8hf.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1107150906590.16878@egate.xpasc.com>
To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1310746475; i=@mrochek.com; bh=7ZbWEFD9I/+5G8h9IbqHjEMiz5COVzBk/M1jV4S17kU=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=junA73RM3YwoQJ3s+5+mFYSR53SknI5FDW4Fe8flCX37niodYmUcoBL99bGkKdw4O StgRcJCdTDgPJL/4wxox+UJy0IDesB07a6h7i5wo/yPu+Bv0d9PuiL/gqePf3lvycA hH7Y4sodY12391oPpkS3iebJUYR4Nx7y6L3AMINw=
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:15:32 -0000

> > Obviously we need to take a typical step back first and determine the
> > scope of the problem.  We need to commission a "requirements for noise"
> > ID first.

> Can we schedule a BOF? Perhaps a symbolic burning of notices?

Wouldn't that be a BON rather than BOF?

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email