All,
Again, I come out of the darkness of my lurking position and speak up my
mind.
I have been watching the discussions on this list continuously, and
technically there is not a lot against Sender-ID (although some proper
objections have been made, which I will not repeat here).
I have been worried about the licensing issue, but have been convinced
to wait it out. Now, with the 23 august deadline passed, I still see
that there is reason for concern. Although a license has been prepared,
it still does not say what exactly is licensed.
I refer to Harry Katz' remark:
If you have any further questions about the license, I encourage you to
consult with your own attorney and/or email your question to
stdsreq(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com(_dot_) Someone from our legal department
will answer
your questions.
I am not prepared to contact my attorney (i don't have one) to do
open-source development on Sender-ID. For me, this means all work on
Sender-ID is a nono. I will continue to labour for SPF+SRS. I can only
hope the SPF Classic drafts (or better, Unified SPF) will be MARID's
proposal, replacing the technically imperfect and legally troublesome
Sender-ID proposal, but failing that I (and I believe many others)
will continue work on SPF.
It would be a shame if this leads to a split, where one part of the
industry/community works on Sender-ID and another works on SPF. This
will frustrate the general cause we are 'fighting' for.
Koen Martens
P.s.: note that there are many people lurking on the list as did I,
reluctant to step in and join a debate among real experts that seem to
have a more than thorough knowledge of email. I hope many of them will
step forward, and voice their concern about this IPR business now, or
else it might just be too late.
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/