spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What about reverse source path?

2004-05-28 09:18:03
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 10:28, wayne wrote:
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.

[snip]

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.

  I don't fight against MS for the sake of fighting.  I do it, when it
makes sense.  The patent issue justifies it in this case.
  But, yes, I am, in fact, here to end email forgery.  Which is why I'm
using sendmail-milter-spf and why I'm attempting, however feebly ;-), to
write a socket map server for sendmail with libsrs to do SES.  I will
publish the results if I/when I make headway.  (Much of it is new
territory for me.)
  And provided MS is adopting current SPF records and is attempting to
be compatible in other ways, insofar as it makes *everybody's* life
easier, then yes, this is a win.  As long as *no one* is forced to use
or implement MS patented technology that requires a signed, faxed
license.

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.

  If this is indeed true, then this is good news.  Especially since...

The GPL patent issue, however, I take very seriously.

  ...it will at least be possible to implement a libspf-nonxml library
under, maybe, the LGPL for those who do not wish to use xml at all.

  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.

  As admitted before, I am a pro-GPL freak (and proud of it :-)), but it
is, as you imply, irrelevant to any discussions on this list.  Your
statement above is exactly the argument I brought up before, and I
wholeheartedly agree.  I was look for confirmation that others were
thinking about this.  Thank you.  There are *already* GPLed MTAs out
there that need to contended with.  Let's not unfairly push them out of
the market because we don't like or don't care about the license.


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.

  As long as it stays the way, I can be happy about it.
  And as more good news, it looks like there's now a more lively
discussion going on about possibly using reverse source path!

  Also, please accept my apologies for the apparent grumpiness of my
last post.  Most of my concerns still stand, though my tone was a little
too much on the side of 'the world is against me' rant.  I guess I
should refrain from posting at 2:30am from now on. :-/

-- 
-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