--"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> 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.
The objective here is to stop spam. The world does not care about your
piffling and irrelevant vendetta against Microsoft.
Hi Phillip,
In the interest of making spf-discuss calmer and less drama-focused, do you
think I could ask you to take the extra time to tone down the abrasive
style a bit?
You have some interesting and insightful comments, as well as access to a
unique perspective. The trouble is you have an "in your face" style that
reads like superiority whether you mean it to or not. I would consider the
above to be namecalling/insulting.
I know it takes extra time and effort to say what you want to say without
taking shortcuts like this. If you could take the extra time and focus on
the content and avoid making characterizations about the speaker, I would
much appreciate it.
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.
Its not just engineers who get wedged on their own pet projects.
I was not aware of this. Do you have more information about it?
Thanks, talk to you later.
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>