In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEAD2(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
If not, wouldn't this mean that users of qmail that want to support
SenderID (which we hope will be all of them) need to get a license
from Microsoft?
Or an alternative MTA :-)
I'm not sure that is really a joking matter. We aren't supposed to
talk about "hidden agendas", but since you raised the issue, I'll ask
directly:
Is your goal in supporting the SenderID license to get people to use
"an alternative MTA", say the one that Harry and Jim work on?
If I had to patch Qmail the way I would do it is as follows:
[ideas snipped]
Your scheme does not match the design of qmail. What you are
suggesting is a major rewrite of the qmail MTA.
One of the reasons for using the PRA is the claim that it would be
easier to support than SPF-classic and SRS. However, there have long
been patches for qmail to do SPF-classic and SRS, but now you are
claiming that the way to do PRA is to do a major rewrite of one of the
most popular MTAs on the Internet.
-wayne