From: Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us>
To: Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>
If there's a more blatant example of rubber stamping in the history of
IETF, then I hope a better historian than I can share the archives with
me.
If there's a more blatant example of mischaracterization in the history
of IETF....
Whether it is an example of rubber stamping can't be determined until
we see the I-D.
Besides, the implication that rubber stamping by the IETF is a bad
thing is wrong. When the IETF has worked well, it has applied its
stamp of approval to things developed, tested, and initially deployed
outside the IETF. IETF working groups that try to design things
never do better than can be expected of standards committees, and
that's a step below the sad results of ordinary committees. The
IETF is often competent to determine and publish the choice of the
market; it is incompetent at inventing.
MARID will provide good service. For years, the unthinking and snake
vapor oil vendors insisted that "redesigning" SMPTP with authentication
would solve the spam problem. Now that we have SMTP-TLS, SMTP-AUTH,
S/MIME, and PGP, they have changed their songs to praise sender
authorization. Sender authorization cannot fix the spam problem, but
MARID will soak up a lot of their noise for months (or years).
When an official sender authorization protocol fails to end spam by
the Sept. 2004 (see http://ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html),
maybe we'll get to hear a new chorus. Maybe a few will stop praying
for the salvation of business models that depend on abusing the commons
and switch business models. (e.g. actually deal with abusive users)
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf