-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roger Moser wrote:
| Paul Iadonisi wrote:
|
|
|>I keep saying it, and I'm going to keep saying it, that THREE LAWYERS
|>have stated that this license is incompatible with many FOSS licenses
|>(including the GPL) and ZERO LAWYERS have said otherwise.
|
|
| That is intentional. In this way MS achieves that Sender-ID is not
| implemented in open source programs or on Linux systems. They will
announce:
| "If you don't want to receive spam anymore, then use our programs and our
| operating systems. The other programs do not protect you from spam because
| they do not use Sender-ID although we offered a free license."
|
| Roger
<tinhat=on>
Some of us, a while back, suspected that MS was at least passively in
league with at least some of the bigger spam shops. Then MS spammed it's
own hotmail users, then MS annouced they would be releasing address
lists to "responsible" mass mailing agencies. This did nothing at all
to counter the original premise. MS employees "on their own" have
spammed newsgroups and forums for many years. MS for all intents and
purposes, appears (to me, to others) to be spam friendly.
When spam became part of the national debate, some of us then thought,
"Just wait, MS is going to propose that if everyone used their software,
then none of this would be a problem." Then within a year, rumours of
a "sender-id" proposal starting floating. Then rumours of another,
open proposal SPF started floating. Then the sender-id scheme started
gaining traction.
</tinhat>
In view of past behaviour, I think there isn't a lot of question what
is going on here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBNxjWa44x14FCa6ARAozjAJ9slirsBUA9HyDzIR5lgZgsDZ8EBQCfUlck
5RsYvB1sh14nQp6b/dDrmaI=
=1qNN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----