In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEE0F(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
Over the last month or so, Meng has repeatedly voiced the opinion that
he wants to see more profesional conduct on this mailing list. As
such, I believe your use of "idiotic", "piffling", and "irelevant" are
not appropriate. YMMV and I'll leave it up to the moderators to
decide what, if any action is appropriate.
The objective here is to stop spam. The world does not care about your
piffling and irrelevant vendetta against Microsoft.
You claim that objections to the function of the PRA are somehow a
"vendetta against Microsoft" is a red herring. Nowhere did Terry say
anything that was anti-Microsoft and the constant claiming of anything
that doesn't fully support the PRA as being anti-MS damages us.
The objective is, indeed, to stop forgery and spam, but that is made
harder by proposals that do not work.
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 can not speak for Apache, the IETF or the W3C, but I can say that
what is acceptable in some situations is often not acceptable in
others. A license that might be acceptable for a standard that
affects localized component may well be unacceptable if it affects
most web servers, web browsers and proxies. In the case of MARID and
the MS patent license, it would indeed cause deployment problems for a
large percentage of existing MTAs.
I can also say that the SpamAssassin folks are new to the
Apache project and to the best of my knowledge, they were the ones
that caused the MS patent license to be reviewed by the Apache
lawyers. It is quite possible that if SA had been a part of the
Apache project earlier, that the same objections would have been
It is also true that there were far more than just the Apache lawyers
that objected to the MS license, so focusing all your objects to them
is misleading.
-wayne