Phillip,
You wrote:
<snip>
|I was not in any case identifying any individual associated
|with either party as being responsible for pushing anyones
|buttons, ...
<snip>
As to my earlier response, you do have a wonderful way of
being blunt, and as a result causing my dander to get up.:-)
I for one am prepared to simply treat your initial remarks
as "over exuberance."
I don't want to get into a "flame war" with you. I
appreciate that my response was extremely tough and some
may consider it over the top. I was reacting viscerally,
which is never a good thing.
Although we look at things differently, having differing
views of how best to proceed, along with disagreeing on
the appropriate patent license for an open standard,
both of us do want to get on with the job.
The question is how best to proceed.
As to your comments about those who pushed for a change
from spf v1 to spf v2, I do think your remarks were to put
it politely, unfortunate.
On the topic, if memory serves me correctly, when the whole
debate about moving from spf v1 to spf v2 first came up in
August on the spf-discuss list, I believe I was in the camp
of being opposed.
This was at a time when the whole license debate was still
up in the air as we were waiting on Microsoft's final word.
Sadly, with the release of the patent, the collapse of
MARID and the resulting recriminations this has changed the
water under the beam, while making people's emotions rather
raw.
- John
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 12/10/2004