On 5/7/2004 5:49 AM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey:
Matthew,
Question 1 - does everything have to be in a draft form? I have seen a
lot of things hashed through without those (CID and YDK). Most of them
seem to be ideas about things to try and not about things already built?
CID and YDK got a lot of hostility for not submitting stuff in draft
form too. (And the former for being based on unspecified proprietary
IP, and simply being from a company that's a convicted predatory
monopoly, etc.)
Here's one way likely to get rid of much of such hostility:
https://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html. An irrevocable offer
to license at a specified price would be another idea...
Question 2 - Is the patent piece of this a non starter in terms of
working with this group? I know you all are considering other patent
pending ideas, what makes this one so different and what is with the
hostile remarks to us popping our heads up?
The IETF doesn't flatly reject anything that's patented or patent
pending, AFAIK, but it's a big hit, because patents usually make broad
adoption more difficult.
In terms of techno-social merit, ML seems to potentially accomplish
about what SPF does, while requiring more work from adoptees, and less
incentive to early adopters, hence being less likely to achieve its
potential. E.g. I'd have to set up and run an ML server for my domain
(or pay someone to).
We are not trying to create a hostile environment, we just created
something we know works and want to have it flushed out as an option
as it is the most secure form of authentication (no pki, no publishing
specific ips dns, not rebranding of old ideas into something new),
it provides the level of accountability required before any e-postage
scheme is possible and actually works.
Is the job of this group to find something that works, or find something
that nobody else came up with?
Thank you
Bill McInnis
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:04:11 -0700
On 5/6/2004 6:16 PM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey:
Hello,
We started this thread over in the MARID board only to be
asked to move over here, which we can understand.
What Andy said applies equally here:
Bill,
If you are asking for expert review of your proprietary anti-spam
system, please do it elsewhere.
If you are seeking to contribute to this IETF standardization effort,
please submit an Internet Draft complete with proper intellectual
property notices. And remember, MARID is about a DNS authorization
solution for MTAs.
If you believe that input documents to MARID are in conflict with your
own intellectual property, please specify which methods are in
conflict.
-andy, co-chair
?
It looks like you already got a bunch of feedback on the MARID list:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00940.html
...
Thank you,
Bill McInnis
.
----
This message has been verified as authentic by MessageLevel.
Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com.
----
This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by MessageLevel users.
Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg