And from http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03750.html:
"Finally, some participants have outright stated that they are
interested only in the advancement of a competing specification
to Sender ID while others have not said so much but have taken
a similar tone. This is most offensive and counter to the notion
of finding a consensus-based standard. Many individuals in this
working group have worked very hard to find common ground, and
this unilateralism is unfair to them. If it is your intent to be
unwavering and steadfast in your opinion no matter the discourse
of the issues, we ask that you disengage from this working group."
I add my vote to this motion for reasons I previously stated:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04008.html
and AccuSpam has no particular attachment to any competing standard for
PER-DOMAIN anti-forgery.
I also find no major objection if Microsoft can eliminate the need to sign (fax
or otherwise agree to) a patent license in order to distribute products which
implement SenderID. Else I think we should be patient to standardize on an
alternative which is clearly in the public domain. In the meantime, we have de
facto standards, such as SPF, which can are gaining adoption (especially among
anti-spam) and can protect senders who are being phished.
Additionally, the issue of deploying per-domain anti-forgery out to all senders
is a complex one that is not completely solved with MSFT's PR apparatus and
influence.
-Shelby Moore