Subject: RE: In support of Sender ID

From: "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:08:07 -0500

[Mark C. Langston]
>US corporate law not withstanding, Cloudmark is not an individual.

I submit that the From address of the message in question was "Leon
Rishniw". As you say, we are supposed to assume we all represent
ourselves as individuals here.

So to me, that message says "Leon Rishniw supports SenderID because
Cloudmark organizationally supports it." That's his opinion, and I think
he's just as entitled to express it as you are entitled to express
yours.

---

From: "Mark C. Langston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:11:12 -0700

> he's just as entitled to express it as you are entitled to express

So you'll be okay with all those people speaking up for their
organizations, stating that their organizations won't be implementing
it?

Fair enough.  The SETI Institute won't be implementing Sender-ID.

-- 
Mark C. Langston            GOSSiP Project          Sr. Unix SysAdmin
[email-masked]   http://sufficiently-advanced.net    [email-masked]
Systems & Network Admin      Distributed               SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org       E-mail Reputation       http://www.seti.org