On 11/16/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)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.