Re: Bug#296369: ITP: spin -- Powerfull model checking and softwareverification tool
Glenn Maynard wrote:
My read of RFC-822 says that "Reply-To" represents where replies are to
be sent rather than an arbitrary field for putting identifying
Its a functional name used for all the Open Source Server (OSS)
oriented-lists that I subscribe to. This approach very effectively
enables me to manage my mail as I travel, and access email through a
variety of systems. An unanticipated side benefit of using this approach
has been the dramatic reduction in the volume of junk-mail that goes to
my personal email.
Your name in the From: header is for the benefit of others to identify
you, not for you to put arbitrary metadata in. I don't care what your
u@h is--I've used separate usernames for lists in the past, myself, but
I made sure that the name was reasonable: "Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org>".
(I've stopped doing that, because it backfired: the only effect it had
was that spam spiders picked up all of the variants, and I started getting
several copies of every spam. Dur.)
4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. <snip>
I use OSS for all open source server lists (arbitrary distinction in this case) and restrict mail accepted for that account to just the lists.
They could be sending junk, unless it is sent through the list I never see it (yes it violates the doctrine of not losing mail
but I'm ok with that for list addresses)
Since its a problem I'll have a new address set-up for here.
"LUCENT, at its sole discretion, may from time to time publish a revised
and/or new version of this Agreement (each such revised or new version
shall carry a distinguishing version number) which shall govern all copies
of Licensed Software downloaded after the posting of such revised or new
version of this Agreement."
When you downloaded the software from me (#3 above), you received a copy
of Licensed Software, and it was downloaded "after the posting of such
revised or new version of this Agreement", which means you receive the
changed license, not the one I have--or at least that's what the above
text seems to say. IANAL, and I have no idea what the actual intent was.
I expect I'm missing something on how your licence grant to distribute
is in fact revoked, or how I receive a licence not tied through you.
(I will grant it is not clear you have a right to distribute under this