On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If the SPF council starts sending out idiotic messages like this then it is
finished. There is no legal or moral authority behind the demand.
I would agree with this to the extant that it may not be appropriate or
productive use of council's time to send such a message. The council
should provide clear position of SPF Community on reuse of these records
and if this violates published SPF technical specs and then the user who
had the email rejected (and has then legal authority to demand something)
can send the statement pointing to such document as evidence that the site
that did PRA check is doing so in violation of SPF specs.
The objective here is to stop spam. The world does not care about your
piffling and irrelevant vendetta against Microsoft.
If I told you that you should stop using email, would you consider it to
be a correct way of dealing with the problem? I mean it does achieve the
goals and you no longer have spam issue but its not going to be well liked
by the user who is used to email. So while the objective can be to stop
spam its absolutly not "stop by by any means" or "support any proposal".
It is fair to choose which proposal meet's group's agenda and support
and also fair to critisize proposals if they have serious technical and
other issues and where the aims of the proposal could be better achieved
by different means.
The Apache lawyer who objected to the Sender-Id license agreed to the exact
same term in the W3C patent negotiations, he seems to have decided to use
MARID and the IETF as an opportunity to reopen the debate in the IETF and go
for more.
I would like to see you reference the terms agreed with W3C se we could
compare. But my admitedly poor understanding of legal texts leads me to
believe the devil is often in details and that FOSS laywers have offered
MS similar licenses that would meet FOSS objectives and offered to work
with them on modifying particular parts of MS text that were a problem
but that MS rejected that offer, so it does not seem fair to put such
blame as you did on FOSS lawyers when its clearly with the other party.
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/