Fredagen, den 27 aug 2004, skrev Margaret Olson:
My problem with this line of reasoning is that any spam reduction mechanism
is going to have IPR claims - by either the genuine inventors or someone
else. There are multiple patent claims on challenge response. I am not
comfortable with the idea that we reject a technology because the IPR holder
has deep pockets.
I have not seen any one on this list mention that as an argument against
Sender ID, have you?
As far as I can tell, that the IPR is held by Microsoft
remains the primary objection, and I can't see that as a valid objection.
Of course it is.
Poeple including some laywers states that this license is incompatible
with many other licenses.
This is of great concern as it affects deployment.
I would also argue that there is a control advantage to making Sender ID an
IETF standard. It makes it much harder for Microsoft (or anyone else, for
that matter) to make arbitrary revisions. Whether or not this matters depends
on whether you think it will get widespread adoption. I think it will, and
that most of us are going to wind up dealing with it regardless of the IETF
decision. Do we prefer an IETF standard or a de-facto standard? Of course, if
adoption is widespread and rapid enough it will be difficult for anyone to
change regardless of the size of the gorillas.
Margaret.
Med vänliga hälsningar
Mattias W E