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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDFqlA/RxM5Ph0xhMRA2y2AJ9UwyXVDEYDRMF9gUQCnx7hSSuy3ACdF7m2
vl61VM3IMJViqp0yr5LQb3Q=
=RbnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----