full-disclosure - Re: NorfolkDesign.com proven track of excellence

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <478E15D8.8939.A48BD460@nick.virus-l.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:34:00 +1300
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
To: Full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: NorfolkDesign.com proven track of excellence

Ronnie - Norfolk Design to me:

> All we are trying to do is neutralise false accusations that were made about
> us by a malicious spammer which are appearing in search engines. I have
> personally contacted John the list administrator and have his full
> permission to do this. 
> 
> We have a signed letter from the BBC litigation department confirming that
> the accusations are completely untrue.
> 
> I really hope all members understand, and offer my sincerest apologies for
> any inconvenience this is causing but it's our only option.
> 
> Kindest regards
> Ronnie Zahdeh
> Norfolk Design 
> Limits are in the mind, not on the web.
> E-mail: ronnie@...folkdesign.com 
> Website: http://www.norfolkdesign.com 
> 
> The information contained in this email is sent from Norfolk Design and is
> intended to the addressed recipient(s) only. The content is confidential and
<<snip>>

I (loosely) understand your grievance.

I disagree with your choice of methods to "correct" it.

Sending the same message to this list at least three times, and now 
largely repeating that message but not in the pseudo-legalistic mumbo-
jumbo some cheap lawyer scribbled on the back of an envelope in the bar 
the night before last does not help make you look like a victim.

Pairing it with a totally nonsensical pseudo-legalistic "disclaimer", 
probably programmatically attached to all Email sent out from your 
company Email server beyond your control, just make you look even 
sillier.

_That_ is what I was pointing out.  I don't give a rat's arse about 
your perceived slandering or even the (initial) steps you've taken to 
"correct" it (as, it seems, you see this farce).  I start to care when 
you needlessly repeat yourself _especially_ when you couple all that 
with your nonsensical, legally meaningless and uneforceable, 
"disclaimers"

Rather than wasting your and our time trying to further justify your 
increasing nonsense, go spend a few quid on a _competent_ IT lawyer and 
ask him why folk are making fun of your Email "disclaimers"...

(I suspect you'll have trouble deciding if any given lawyer you choose 
to consult about this is "competent" to provide such advice, but as a 
rough rule of thumb, if they don't suggest drastic changes to 
(generally, blanket removal of) your current "disclaimer", their 
opinion is not worth paying for.)

Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/