On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 15:31 -0500, Guy wrote:
Some of the content of this letter is beyond me. Too bad for me.
But I agree with the parts that I do understand.
How can I have my name added to the letter?
Or should I send my own copy? If so, does anyone have a list of email
addresses to send this letter?
Its important that if you have not done so already that you sign the
pledge of agreement with the "SPF Community position on SenderID". This
pledge plays an important role in delivering a message that there is
real opposition to this protocol, and said opposition is organized and
has a better solution.
For the record, my biggest problem is the license requirement. I am for
open source, and open standards. If email (SMTP) was a new protocol, then
fine, someone can own it. But SMTP has been around for well over 15 years,
and it has been an open standard used world wide. No new standard, built on
SMTP should be allowed to risk the world wide SMTP network.
"Another concern is that some of these schemes are subject
to intellectual property right claims. To ensure wide
spread deployment and an equal playing field, we would urge
that any licenses be royalty free and fully compliant with
the Open Standards Alliance model."
I recommend that you read my post of earlier today which linked the
GROKLAW article, its EXCEPTIONAL! It does a great job of bring the
legal speak down to a level where its easy to comprehend the
implications and furthermore it clearly points out the duplicity of
their license and the pointlessness of it.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|-|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF