In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0506250556400(_dot_)21285(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, 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.)
Yes, SID uses SPF protocol and (ab)uses SPF1 records, but I'm certain
you know what I meant about that statement not being appropriate.
Yes, I know what you meant.
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?
I think you should go ahead and assume that Meng will keep his word
and within next 1-6 month you will receive their official word on
relicensing and that if you change it now they will not mind about it
either.
Ok, I've started blasting a few parts of the spf.pobox.com website.
I'm judgement proof anyway.
-wayne