IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 15 July 2011 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 71EB121F8B7B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZuHtV6y6P3+0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87D421F8B60 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so700077gwb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bHMDhT1yMEOirXP3eU1RwMs0o9HhELrVuMZff7EDsx0=; b=DfkEYSzlk+6Y5kO3edcuamGDKojY3PjRkaFoI/F/blg4P7wTuF2Q2YrzeeWA4Qfykc VsVeQR/zqE+HFMnnvgVp1sQIKws7vF5E9JU8nfTT5Ba4V6AL6QAhXHkW6drOuRtvoyIs kGeFLhaA1oAcBnViesjwkU5QLDCXcWt13JN2k=
Received: by 10.150.160.1 with SMTP id i1mr756968ybe.157.1310750792133; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.144.3 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01O3O60PAEKG00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
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> <01O3O60PAEKG00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:26:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEG-n3-otfbfRA4nb0TWvcBfm1juvaXBrR21MCzLv1veKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Confidentiality notices on email messages
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 17:26:35 -0000

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:14 PM,  <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com> wrote:
>> > 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?

Don't you mean BON-fire...

Donald

>                                Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email