It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> said: >I am also not a lawyer, but I suspect it's a stretch to say the recipient >of an unintentional disclosure now has an obligation that has to be >asserted or disclosed. As far as the protocol goes, at that point, the >damage is already done.
A lot of people seem to disagree with you, viz the inane boilerplate found at the bottom of many messages that assert that the message is confidential and bad things will happen if you disclose the contents of the mail they just sent to a mailing list with a thousand subscribers. But they are wrong. While I am not a lawyer either, I have spent a lot of time looking at privacy law and I am quite sure that if a stranger sends you a message with something he imagined to be confidential, that his his problem, not yours, and there is nothing we need to say or even could say about it. R's, John PS: There actually is one case where that boilerplate is plausible but only if both the sender and recipient are lawyers and it's sent by fax. For the rest of us who are not lawyers who fax things to each other, forget it. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
