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.
According to that argument the spammers could sue for all the spam blocked
by the VeriSign spam filter. Almost none of the checking going on is
specified in any RFC.
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?
You are making a ridiculous comparison but you are also making my case. No
matter what you call yourself, you don't have standing to decide how SPF is
used, nor does anyone.
The logic of your position would be that we would all have to abandon SPF
and use CSV instead because Dave Crocker says so.
I would like to see you reference the terms agreed with W3C
se we could
compare.
I don't know if they have a Web site at WWW.w3.org but you might give it a
try, you might get lucky, you never no.
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.
Read what you wrote, the FOSS people submitted a demand that would meet
their objectives. They did not make an offer that would meet Microsoft's
objective of making sure that the reciprocal license clauses were
enforceable.
Larry Rossen is really sure that the sublicense is enforceable, but there
are plenty of lawyers that think there is likely to be a problem. The GPL
has NEVER been tested in court, patent license terms are notorious for being
'voodoo'. Larry's certitude on the point is not justified.
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/
-------
Sender
Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf->
discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com