james-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Fisher <dfis...@jmlafferty.com>
Subject Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:44:53 GMT
Hi Guys,

Thanks for the feedback. Sam Ruby is already talking to legal about  
OSP and POI.

I'll report back to this list if you would like to know how that goes.

The SpamAssassin project seems to have little interest in SenderID, I  
don't think they care anymore.


On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Danny Angus wrote:

> FYI it was the spam assassin project that guided the ASF's response.
> d.
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher  
>> <dfisher@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
>>> Hi -
>> hi david
>>> I'm involved in the Apache POI project and we have quite an active
>>> discussion going on that includes discussion about Microsoft's  
>>> Open Source
>>> Promise (OSP) [1] and whether that is sufficient license  
>>> protection for the
>>> project's users. During the discussion we were pointed at the ASF  
>>> Position
>>> Regarding Sender ID [2] which was written by the ASF, Apache  
>>> SpamAssassin
>>> PMC and Apache JAMES PMC.
>> micrsoft has come a long way since 2004
>>> I couldn't help noticing that Microsoft had made the OSP to the  
>>> SenderID
>>> RFC's. Does the project feel that the OSP does anything to  
>>> eliminate the
>>> concerns expressed in the position statement?
>> i haven't studied it in detail but at first glance it looks good
>>> The OSP makes me think so, but I think you are the definitive  
>>> audience to
>>> ask. (I'm asking both projects)
>> i'm not sure i'd describe us as the definitive: legal-discuss is the
>> best forum for legal questions and that's where this one need to be
>> moved. if it's time for apache to change it's position WRT sender ID
>> we need to talk about it there.
>> - robert

View raw message