On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Eh? This is new. I've always understood that permissions@ was for "filing" such claims, as well as being a way to deal with people who contact us directly.
Assuming we're getting copies of the correspondence, with headers etc, this shouldn't be a problem. Who's been telling you this, can you recall?
It's long been strongly preferred (or rather required with lax enforcement) that the rights granter reply to or at least CC permissions.
We've certantly had cases of people outright lying about permissions requests, so that has to be balenced against our desire to trust and make things as simple as possible.
Great ideas towards this end are always welcome.