ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Enough RE: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02)

2005-12-19 13:10:09
 

From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu] 

If we standardize a technology, we are saying that technology 
solves some problem. and that its usage has well understood 
and accepted consequences.

Ergo since Microsoft and many others have already said they are going to
be using PRA type techniques it follows that they had better be
described so that the expectations of the legitimate senders are met.

The point I am making here is that nothing that the IETF can do will
create a situation where the sender of an email will be able to ensure
that recipients do not filter the email using a particular technology.


So it is entirely appropriate to consider the effects on 
senderds of spam filtering technology.  Does the technology 
have an unacceptably high false positive rate?  Does the 
technology adversly effect business models or classes of 
users in ways we find unacceptable?
Does the technology impose and unreasonable load on senders?

So document it. My concern was that the appeal is simply rehashing the
IPR issue ad-naueam and provides no value.


The receiver can do whatever they like.  The sender has no rights.
However, people expect us to publish standards that make 
sense and produce a working Internet when used.  So we're 
going to consider these issues when we evaluate standards.  
They like everything else we do will be a matter of rough 
consensus.  If you want to ignore the implications of your 
work on the broader Internet and on both senders and 
recipients, then perhaps the IETF is the wrong place for you 
to do your work.

There are legitimate concerns and unhelpful concerns. In the case of
MARID the real root of the complaint is the IPR terms under which the
PRA technology was offered. Despite the fact that the IETF has accepted
many similar licenses certain people decided they had an opportunity to
re-open a battle they had lost in W3C.

In the case of spam filtering I would hazard a guess that every
imaginable technique is claimed in at least a dozen current patent
applications and that at least a quarter of them will be granted. So
getting upset about this one particular technique that has been offered
on open terms because they are asserted to be not quite open enough is a
bit pointless.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf