In
<1085725688(_dot_)5040(_dot_)36(_dot_)camel(_at_)va(_dot_)local(_dot_)linuxlobbyist(_dot_)org>
Paul Iadonisi <pri(_dot_)spf(_at_)iadonisi(_dot_)to> writes:
You know, with the minimal consideration of reverse source path
resurrection, the rush towards XML even though there's been many good
reasons to NOT use XML argued, and the dearth of assurances that the new
merged proposal will avoid any of Microsoft's disclosed patent(s), is
giving the distinct impression that this is no longer an open forum.
I don't think anything has really changed, this still appears to me to
be an open forum. Sometimes people get busy.
As far as XML, MicroSoft seems to *REALLY* want it. Getting MicroSoft
to accept the idea that they will also use the current SPF records and
to include equivalent funcitonality in the XML records is a huge win.
Like it or not, only MicroSoft can change Outlook, Exchange and
Hotmail/MSN. Having them on board will mean much quicker adoption and
a quicker end to email forgery. If you here to end email forgery (and
spam) rather than fighting for OSS or fighting against MS, then this
should make you happy.
It is my understanding that people will only have to use XML if the
current SPF syntax can't support the required extentions. I think for
the vast majority of people/domains, SPFv1 will be the only thing they
will ever need to worry about. Yes, people who create SPF
implementations and libraries may well want/need to support XML, but
there are far fewer people writing SPF implementations than people
using it. Once the library programming is done, no one needs to worry
about it.
The GPL patent issue, however, I take very seriously. I think there
are times when proprietary licences are the best, times when the GPL
is best and times when BSD is best. I'm not a pro or anti-GPL freak.
The fact that several popular MTAs are GPLed is a fact of life and we
need to make sure that the new SPF is compatible with the GPL.
The problem isn't the Caller-ID folks at MicroSoft, the problem is the
MS lawyers they have to deal with. Corporations, evey huge ones like
MS, are made up of individuals and even though the C-ID folks might
really want a *much* more liberal license, they don't call the shots.
MicroSoft may well end up in the situation where certain mailers just
won't support the XML part of the new SPF. This means that domain
owners may be very reluctant to use XML. Since MicroSoft is the one
pushing for XML, I see this as their problem, not mine.
-wayne