On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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.
Nor is it against the RFC. But the point here is that somebody published
their policy records with certain expectations that they would be used
according to a standard technical specs and they are not, so the publisher
has the right to demand that they be used properly (so the case is not
really about purely rejecting the email but about improper use of the
published policy information and there is nothing like that with just
rejecting email under spam filters).
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.
Somehow I did not get you concluded it based on what I wrote. Deciding not
to do something is after all very different then deciding to do it in the
what is that contradictary to technical standard.
The logic of your position would be that we would all have to abandon SPF
and use CSV instead because Dave Crocker says so.
No, the logic of the position would be that Dave Crocker and those who
support him are free to use CSV instead of SPF and there is nothing
wrong with that. So eventhough Dave seems to have same interest as us
in working on spam issue, he's not supporting every proposal in that
area just because it claims to be anti-spam.
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.
I went to their siteindex at http://www.w3.org/Help/siteindex but could
not find relevent references there, the problem is I think I would need
to know more about which project that related to and when the discusions
took place and than it would help narrow down the search criteria.
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.
That's why thy call it negotiation which if both parties were willing
to work on it should have resulted in agreement, lawyers are good at
it you know :) From what I heard it was not FOSS people who broke it
off...
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/