wayne wrote:
In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0506250533540(_dot_)21285(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
But if you want to get some continued critisicm off, may I suggest a
small step in the right direction such as perhaps getting rid of
"SPF is an essential part of SenderID" and replacing that text with
"SPF is not a part of SenderID" with link to your press-release on this
topic on council's website.
Actually, SPF *IS* an essential part of SID. SID is irrelevant to
SPF. (Well, other than SID's abuse of SPF records.)
But, as far as changing things, as Chuck points out we do not have
copyrights over the current website. Meng promised a week and a half
ago that he would get it relicensed under the GFDL, but Meng has gone
AWOL again. Yeah, Meng has been at the MAAWG meeting for part of the
last week and a half, but I honestly don't believe that this has taken
up 100% of his time and he hasn't had the few minutes needed to get
this content relicensed.
Should we just blow off getting copyright permission and assume that
since Meng has been AWOL for so much of SPF for the last 6+ months
that the IC Group (current copyright holders) will not bother us?
Meng has walked away from SPF - so let's forget him.
Go direct to the copyright holders and explain in a simple e-mail what teh situation is
and that we need to use a few bits of teh materials on the old website, but it's a
temporary measure. I am quite sure they will respond favourably - they could hardly do
anything else, given their long association with SPF.
Get rid of ALL references to sid. period.
Kill all the links that are broken - of which there seem to be many :-/
Give the webmasters a brief and let them get on with it.
Slainte,
JohnP