On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 14:21, Roy Badami wrote:
[snip]
In this context, Sender ID is far more useful to us than SPF, because
SPF protects an identity that is not available to the MUA in any
reliable way. I realize that Sender ID also protects an identity that
isn't currently displayed by MUAs, but hopefully we will see that
change fairly rapidly. [1]
This makes no sense. MAIL FROM is most certainly at least as
available to the MUA as Sender-ID via the Return-Path: header. Neither
is displayed by most MUAs, but if I'm not mistaken, Sender-ID identity
is heuristically determined. Return-Path: is one value, so it is
presumably much simpler to determine.
Anyhow, that may not be significant. It's the only technical
disagreement I have with you that I can discern from your post here.
That said, we will almost certainly be publishing SPF records in
addition to Sender ID records. And we will almost certainly publish
Sender ID records, regardless of whether the spec has the aproval of
the IETF or gets filibustered by endless arguments in this WG, as long
as we see a benefit to us in doing so.
I object to this being referred to as filibustering. If it were, I
would have expected the co-chairs to put a stop to it by now. With very
few exceptions (mostly from those in favor of moving forward with the
current Sender-ID patent license), the discussion has been very civil
and well reasoned.
[snip]
Even if Sender ID is incompatible with the GPL [2] -- and I'm
skeptical that it is except under the most extreme interpretations --
And we have yet to see a convincing legal argument (or *any* legal
argument) from an attorney posted to this list. I'd like to know what
Anne Mitchell (on this list) thinks of her legal analysis being called
extreme by a non-lawyer.
Sender ID can be implemented now, and the license is not so burdonsome
as to prevent significant deployment. If it can't be implemented
within some MTAs, it can be implemented as a separate stand-alone
package that interfaces to the MTA. Most modern MTAs have interfaces
that would permit this.
This is not as simple as you make it out to be. You are once again
leaving out compilations such as Red Hat's Fedora and Debian. I'm sure
I could list many others. Having a separate module makes no difference
if it's included in the cdrom ISOs that are distributed.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets