On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:27:19 -0500 John Kelly <jak(_at_)isp2dial(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:17:36 -0500 (EST), "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm glad sendmail is not GPL. GPL people are far too anal.
Just think of all those stories about contracts with Lucifer
... That is what signing a contract with Microsoft is like.
Ooooh. Dat red debil gonna get you, boy!
OTOH, the sendmail folks simply declined to sign the license, citing
its impotence.
If they're not worried, why should I?
I can't speak for you, but I can guarantee that Sendmail, Inc. has more
money for lawyers than I do. Speaking from the perspective of a very small
business, if I ever get sued, I've pretty well already lost regardless of
the merits of the situation.
If someone with a legal budget wants to flout the license requirements,
more power to them. I'm unwilling to take the risk (even if it's small).
My position on this isn't specific to Microsoft. Before Yahoo changed
their license requirements for DK, I was concerned about that too.
When it comes to devlopment of e-mail protocol improvements, I think it's
vital that they be implementable in all major MTAs (proprietary and free).
That just isn't possible with Sender ID because Microsoft declined to make
it possible. That is not a rant. That is fact.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com