Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> writes:

> [...]
>     ver-scope   = "pra" / "mailfrom" / name
> [...]
> The question before the working group: assuming no technical errors 
> with the above, is there anybody who vehemently objects with this 
> proposal?

If patent-encumbered stuff (PRA) is any part of the specification (and I
see it mentioned in your proposal), then the ASF (including the
SpamAssassin and JAMES projects) vehemently objects.

Given that there is a lack of consensus on PRA, it seems like the best
course is drop PRA entirely and allow the specification authors to
revise things a bit more freely again.

Daniel Quinlan
V.P., Apache SpamAssassin

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/