OK, based on this, I think we can bring this discussion to an
immediate close.
If I send an email
From: fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
To: tglassey(_at_)glassey(_dot_)com
Reply-To: nobody(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
(a) fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com is demonstrably a workable address; the mailing
software verified that when I subscribed and will remove it if it
starts getting bounces.
(b) If I supply a reply-to address, that means that your MUA will
populate the "to" line with that information. You can override your
MUA and enter fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com(_dot_)
(c) therefore, IETF has verified my "from address" (the ruling), and
the reply-to is in your control.
We're in compliance with the law and its interpretation.
On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:17 AM, tglassey wrote:
On 1/22/2010 9:51 AM, endre(_dot_)walls(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
Todd,
Question - would this interpretation still count if the emails
specified they were from the ietf and gave the recipient the
ability to unsubscribe? I can think of tons of instances where a
nonresponding address would need to be used.
Great question and no - the problem is that the sender has to be
physically identifiable. from my reading of the law and this ruling
it means we MUST have a functional return address for everything and
many people in the IETF use addresses like "NoDelivery(_at_)Domain(_dot_)COM"
as their RETURN TO addresses and the FROM address is equally toast.
That makes the IETF responsible for formally certifying and ensuring
the positive service of any notice. Also there has to be a legally
created point of contact available so IP Notices can be sent to the
parties. The IETF fails this miserably and bluntly its probably the
ISOC managements fault they they have operated under these failings
for so long IMHO. Now its time to do something about this and fix
these processes so that all parties are properly defined and all
points of contact properly enumerated so that things like Cease and
Desist or Patent Infringement Notices can be sent. The IETF's direct
intent to hide that contact information makes it and its management
liable as well in my opinion, something that is a real issue and
that will cause litigation at some point if the IETF doesnt get its
act together.
I'm not a lawyer, but when I read this it seemed to say that the
court felt it was a violation when you (a) concealed your identity
using a private registration and (b) used a shadow email address
with no option for self-removal. I might be wrong on that, just
trying to understand how that ruling relates to ietf practices.
It means ANY cooperative contractually controlled group process
(like the donation of IP to the IETF through NoteWell or other
submission models) needs full disclosure on the IP Owners and their
commitment to the use of that IP in the IETF. It also means that the
refusal to actually disclose the true sponsor is also a 'hiding of
contact information' as well. All parties to any contractual process
MUST be properly identified in order for the contract's provisions
to be enforceable IMHO...
Todd
Endre
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: tglassey <tglassey(_at_)glassey(_dot_)com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:26:01
To: Russ Housley - IETF<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>; chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>; Fred Baker<fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; IETF Discussion<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: All IETF posted email addresses MUST be real.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2638 - Release Date:
01/22/10 07:34:00
http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf