At 9:51 PM -0800 2/28/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Publication looks to be yesterday.
I guess this means that we either need to come up with
really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real
I don't see why. If the problem is already solved there is no need to
spend time working on it. If the problem is not solved or the solution
is imperfect there will be need to improve.
Any solution that is not in the public domain is a problem. If Joe
User (including Joe Domain-Owner) cannot implement the 'solution'
without *thinking* about the IP issues, there is no solution. Any
patented 'solution' is intrinsically imperfect. I lean towards SPF
only because no one seems to be trying to patent it...
Although CallerID and DK are presented as competitors they are actually
very different. DK does not define a policy component and so it is still
necessary to use CallerId or SPF to state that the sending policy of the
domain is to sign emails. CallerID is an IP based authenticator and a
cryptographic authenticator would make a good compliment.
What is very clear is that the gate for entry of new proposals in the RMX
family is essentially closed as far as the market is concerned. That is
a good thing.
Yes. SPF, DK, and CID do a decent job of filling the logical space.
(Note that I first publicly discussed something SPF-like in 2000 but
have had almost no involvement in SPF itself. I'm actually less
optimistic today about the 'RMX' class of approaches than I was in
Asrg mailing list