https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6534
Jason Bertoch <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #8 from Jason Bertoch <[email protected]> 2011-03-01 14:16:37 EST --- I've been following this thread as well and am disappointed in all parties involved. While I have a hard time defending Claus after the above (and related) threads, I don't think the IETF has any business dictating a revenue model. Charging for an expedited version of an otherwise free service seems completely rational. However, with the above pettiness aside, SA is the perfect place for UCEPROTECT in a mail environment. Their revenue model and policies don't have to become ours any more than we want them to. In addition, UCEPROTECT's decision to not follow BCP07 is entirely in their right to do so. It's a BCP, not an RFC. Not that RFC's are required to be followed, adherence is generally more strict. In addition, I've had fair success with local UCEPROTECT rules and would like to see how they compare against the general corpus. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
