[Dshield] Change Thread name- Legal Disclaimers WAS RE: Idea for dealing with ISPs that ignoreabusenotificatons was RE: The Art/Tao/Zen of Abuse e-mails(Was:[Fwd: WHY IS YOURCUSTOMER...])
Tomas L. Byrnes
tomb at byrneit.net
Mon Aug 28 23:33:53 GMT 2006
Can we all agree to change the subject when the thread deviates substantially from the original?
I'm not sure how much this actually is relevant to network security. Some subscribers may be interested in or able to do something about the disclaimers, but I'm pretty sure that a significant number of people interested in how to deal with ISPs that have non-reponsive abuse handles are not in the least bit interested in what footer people have to put on their messages @ the behest of legal.
I also, personally, think that us netsec guys have lots more pressing matters on our plate than what is, or is not, legally binding. By the time legal gets involved, there has been a breach or policy violation. Our primary goal is that it never goes there.
YMMV, and you may have the time to focus on every minute aspect that gets discussed here, but let's at least make sure the threads are properly titled, so we don't waste our time on things we aren't interested in.
From: list-bounces at lists.dshield.org on behalf of Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Sent: Mon 8/28/2006 11:50 AM
To: General DShield Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Dshield] Idea for dealing with ISPs that ignoreabusenotificatons was RE: The Art/Tao/Zen of Abuse e-mails(Was:[Fwd: WHY IS YOURCUSTOMER...])
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:27:54 PDT, Kenton Smith said:
> Can we all just agree that these legal ramblings are worthless on a mailing
> list of this sort and stop lecturing someone every time they send an email with
> a disclaimer footer? There are many people who have no choice and these footers
> are forced on them by legal departments.
As I said in my original posting: "Mention this to your legal eagles". At
least sometimes, the legal eagles are open to persuasion, when you point out
to them that the "reasonable man" interpretation of what they wrote is quite
demonstrably impossible to implement in practice. Also, I've managed to get
at least some places to nuke the "please delete it" clause, by pointing out
that "just hitting delete" doesn't really delete it, it's still on the disk,
and there's backup tapes and the like, and they *don't* want to end up like
Col. Oliver North, convicted partially on the basis of backup tapes of the
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/reagan/chron.txt for *that* story.
Remember - most of these legal eagles are writing these disclaimers *without* a
real understanding of the underlying technology, and educating them can go a
More information about the list