On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 08:55, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Jay Bonci wrote: > > > Hey there Jaldhar, > > I was taking a look at #186691, and I tried to contact the upstream as > > to why the licensing change, but to no avail. It seems like there are a > > other modules that'd cover the ground of this one, rather than having > > something else inside on non-free (it's a spam tool as well). > > > > Any objections to removing the module from the archive? > > > > No I don't object. But incidentally, which module would cover the ground > of this one? I'm not ignoring this bug, just to let you know. I'm putting together some choices for free replacements to this. I'll get back to you in a bit. --jay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part