-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Christopher Larberg wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 17:11 +0100, Nick Boalch wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
What is the prevailing etiquette on what to do with positive responses to requests for confirmation of licensing permission?
I think as long as you remove the IP, the email address and other sensitive info, I doubt that anyone would object to the email being copied to the talk page would they?
No, I can't imagine they would -- but if this sensitive info is removed then there's essentially no difference between an emailed authorisation and a random anonymous editor on the talk page claiming to be the author. Is my word that the confirmation was real enough?
Cheers,
N.
The way I've seen some editors handle this is promise to forward the e-mail to anyone who requests a copy. Of course, this doesn't really resolve the verifiability problem, because headers can be easily spoofed. One suggestion I have is to ask the copyright holder to create a PGP key set and sign the e-mail with his or her private key, as I and some others on this list do with all our e-mails. As long as his or her public key is available, which it always will be if placed on a public key server and downloaded by individuals, the e-mail can be easily verified. GnuPG, a PGP program, is freely available for all major operating systems, and many mail clients, such as Evolution and Mozilla Thunderbird, provide easy PGP integration.
Damn! You beat me to it! (Yes, I read my email in descending thread order, sometimes) :)
Oh, and both GPG and Thunderbird are Free Software.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \