In
<198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD375A2AB8(_at_)MOU1WNEXMB04(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
I do not think that the IESG should block a proposal citing a conflict
when the real animus here is entirely due to the IPR issue.
There are certainly people who have problems with introducing
technology into a core Internet protocol such as SMTP that has a
license that conflicts with with a significant number of deployed
servers.
That is by no means the only thing that people object to. Even if the
license problems went away, there would still be people that have
objections to the conflicting use of SPFv1 records, and, I'm sure,
people who object to the basic techniques to that both SPF and
SenderID use.
All SPF does is provide a mechanism whereby sending parties can describe
their outgoing edge mail servers. The recipient has the absolute right
to interpret that data in any way they see fit. That is the entire point
of a spam filtering scheme.
You have long advocated this position, but unfortunately the
definition of "outgoing edge mail servers" is not a nice, clean, crisp
concept. It sounds good, but unfortunately, it doesn't work.
If this was the case, then there wouldn't be cases where SenderID gaves
incorrect results when using SPFv1 records.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a conflict as far as I am concerned, all
attempts to allege a conflict begin, "the sender intends" which is
utterly irrelevant.
There are several known conflicts, as outlined in the appeal, and they
don't begin with "the sender intends".
-wayne
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf