False and slanderous statements persist...
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
This mailing list is for developer discussions. I could try to explain
what that means, but I'm afraid that you may not have the awareness of
personal or social boundaries to be able to use the explanation.
There you go again
Part of my previous post did not go through to the list. It follows...
This mailing list is for developer discussions. Developers consist of
the people who have commit access to our source control system, SVN.
No where is that stated in public:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists
Shelby Moore wrote:
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
This mailing list is for developer discussions. I could try to explain
what that means, but I'm afraid that you may not have the awareness of
personal or social boundaries to be able to use the explanation.
There you go again trying to ERRONEOUSLY
I just want to point out that what ever decision you make on Razor, will set a
precedent which you must (in fairness) follow in the future for any equivalent
or better performing services which have a similar license and no other
mitigating issues.
I see many rationalizations for keeping Razor
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Again? I stand by the politeness of the one other message I posted in
reply to your original proposal.
again was directed to repeated character attacks from several Committers or
Project Mgmt Committe members.
Thank you for stating you wish you have an amicable
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:33:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
belatedly disable Razor2 by default per our policy (service is not free
for non-personal use), Razor2 plugin code remains in the tree via
grandfathering for now
also change Razor2 scores to be non-mutable since Razor2 will
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:33:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
belatedly disable Razor2 by default per our policy (service is not free
for non-personal use), Razor2 plugin code remains in the tree via
grandfathering for now
also change Razor2 scores to be
Theo Van Dinter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We didn't finis discussing this before the change was made.
Well, we are in C-T-R mode. I thought we had a fairly clear consensus
back in 2003 and it was even you that reminded me about it so I assumed
you agreed. But, really, the main factor for me
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:35:07PM +0800, Shelby Moore wrote:
Ironically veto commit power is a double-edged sword isn't it. As I read
your VotingRules page, Veto means there is nothing left to discuss. Daniel
only needs a valid reason.
I don't think you quite understand how voting works.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:04:45PM +0800, Shelby Moore wrote:
And since when did this action on Razor not directly correlate to and spawn
from the discussion on my thing being ON or OFF by default.
Because it has nothing to do with you. The issue came up from a discussion
between developers
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:41:08PM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
Well, we are in C-T-R mode. I thought we had a fairly clear consensus
back in 2003 and it was even you that reminded me about it so I assumed
you agreed.
I must have come to a different conclusion than you did
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:48:35PM +0800, Shelby Moore wrote:
*Read* YOUR OWN license:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Contribution shall mean any work of authorship, including the original
version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or
Derivative
Daniel Quinlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is that we should ship SA in a default state where it can be
used on terms no more restrictive than Apache License 2.0 (well,
technically, the union of Apache License 2.0 and the Perl module
licenses).
To follow up on this a bit, I think
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
Shelby Moore wrote:
You're being exceedingly rude, FYI.
I thought the same of you when you wrote in this thread, that expressing my
opinion was hijacking and when you said again as if I hijacked any other
thread in this list. That was accusational (and thus rude) in
Shelby,
This mailing list is for developer discussions. Developers consist of
the people who have commit access to our source control system, SVN.
As per Apache Foundation policies, the development process is
transparent. That means that the technical and design discussions we
developers have
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
aspects of the AL 2.0 don't really translate to services, but use does
and that's my main concern with Razor2.
I find Theo's argument that use of the razor server is always free to a
user of a free SA distribution compelling.
Code being free but charging for service is in
Sidney Markowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Code being free but charging for service is in the best tradition of
Free and of Open Source software. Redhat's up2date is open source code
(GPL?), using it to access their server possibly costs money. Email
client software can be free while the
On Friday 04 March 2005 11:41 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Sidney Markowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Code being free but charging for service is in the best tradition of
Free and of Open Source software. Redhat's up2date is open source code
(GPL?), using it to access their server possibly
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
snip
Commenting out the plugin in 3.1 where people are going to want to check
init.pre anyway, is not a huge deal, and it gives everyone an
opportunity to evaluate whether or not they are eligible to use Razor2
before using it.
Shouldn't people evaluate whether or not they
Malte S. Stretz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm... I don't think SpamCop, BondedSender and Habeas fit in that list :)
No, they do. They're 100% free to use for filtering. It does cost
money to be listed in IADB, Bonded Sender, and Habeas, but that doesn't
ever interfere with the free usage of
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Shouldn't people evaluate whether or not they are eligible to use Razor2
before downloading (and installing) the razor-agents from Vipul's website?
That was the substance of the reply I tried to write last night but was
too sleepy to finish.
I thought about how I
Daryl C W O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't people evaluate whether or not they are eligible to use
Razor2 before downloading (and installing) the razor-agents from
Vipul's website?
Yes, but Razor is included with many Linux distributions and a lot of
people have installs (which have
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:19:28AM +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Shouldn't people evaluate whether or not they are eligible to use Razor2
before downloading (and installing) the razor-agents from Vipul's website?
That was the substance of the reply I tried to
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:39:11AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
Daryl C W O'Shea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't people evaluate whether or not they are eligible to use
Razor2 before downloading (and installing) the razor-agents from
Vipul's website?
Yes, but Razor is included with
Duncan Findlay wrote:
That's arguably a bug in the operating system then
I don't think it is even that, but I agree with you that it is not our
place to work around it.
Consider this: Razor is free to use if the client software is free. The
client module may come freely with the OS. The client
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:36:37AM +1300, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
available from SpamAssassin. The only way it costs money to use it from
SpamAssassin is when somebody packages SpamAssassin with something else
as a commercial product and sells it. (Is that true? Does a large ISP
who uses
26 matches
Mail list logo
