-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
| Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
|
|
|>[...]
|> ver-scope = "pra" / "mailfrom" / name
|>[...]
|>The question before the working group: assuming no technical errors
|>with the above, is there anybody who vehemently objects with this
|>proposal?
|
|
| If patent-encumbered stuff (PRA) is any part of the specification (and I
| see it mentioned in your proposal), then the ASF (including the
| SpamAssassin and JAMES projects) vehemently objects.
|
| Given that there is a lack of consensus on PRA, it seems like the best
| course is drop PRA entirely and allow the specification authors to
| revise things a bit more freely again.
|
| Daniel Quinlan
| V.P., Apache SpamAssassin
Dan,
~ Did you see the message linked below from Stephane Bortzmeyer?
It appears to me that he is suggesting that we effectively "un-link" the
encumbered PRA and move ahead with -core, -protocol and -mailfrom
leaving PRA in an experimental state. As Andy has made a suggestion
about where we should focus since we cannot agree to use the PRA for
deployment reasons it seems to me that this might be considered a
reasonable suggestion. What would ASF say to this?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04519.html
- --
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
http://moongroup.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBP7fvv6Gjsf2pQ0oRAqsXAKCW5qk9nBLWVt5i58Mew4hgLHXCOwCeLYrG
4Lby2PDKqUvyAf8OoaJ4m5Q=
=XHLl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----