On occasion, we are blessed with elegance and simplicity and generosity. We
should not break Jon Postel's gift. As an Arizonan, the idea of "controlled
burn" has either proven an oxymoron or that any centralization of authority
attempting "controlled burn" is per se incompetent. The as yet not
understood difference between physical and semantic structures would make
your analogy poor at best. I am very interested in the structures that make
up "ethical systems", but I am not in a position to clearly and holistically
identify them. I just know that simplicity is key - witness SPF1's success -
and that the internet should not be broken. In forty years another business
cycle will come around to the boom-bust phase and there won't be a baby-boom
population to cover the crash and I bet we break the internet and have one
hell of a depression.
damn I have got to have coffee before I turn this box on. sorry
Rather than thinking of Spam as evil, think of it as a fitness function -
those who enter the internet are tested. As one becomes more familiar with
the internet, one is able to eliminate spam for oneself. Actually, it makes
a good first test for people to cut their teeth on - plentiful, not too
dangerous, and lots of others doing the same thing.
What I like about SPF1 is not that it cuts spam(which it does) but that as a
domain owner I can identify from where my official e-mail is permitted to
emanate from. Anyone working in "compliance" is grateful for SPF1. The Spam
stuff is just icing on the cake. The untold truth of the startup: Just
because you built something for a purpose, doesn't mean you will sell it for
that purpose. This is why we have the rule of "final sale".
your sense of "progressive" makes too many assumptions. It is more like
elitist. and Legislators are easily bought, if you remember anything about
Arizona Legislators it should be that they aren't all that expensive! google
AZScam
Ed
Wilderness is where you think you might get lost.
-----Original Message-----
From: mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com
[mailto:mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 11:12 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] the problem of regime change
For a long time, the standard model of government was the
monarchy. A lucky monarch could hope to reign for his or
her natural life, and during their reign their country could
expect a reasonably consistent society. When power passed
peacefully from one monarch to another, social turbulence
was kept to a minimum. When leadership transitions were
eventful, society tended to be disrupted.
The American system of government institutionalizes change:
presidents turn over every four or eight years. While that
builds a certain minimum level of disruption into society,
at least that disruption can be planned for and foreseen.
Compared to a monarchy, where the order of things could go
on for fifty to a hundred years and then be massively
disrupted, scheduled transitions of power are more like a
controlled burn than a wildfire.
Perhaps it's necessary, in this period of great change on
the Internet, to adopt a model of regular controlled burns,
to avoid the damage of an out-of-control wildfire.
SMTP has remained essentially unchanged since 1985. Because
there were no small burns, spam grew and grew in the
underbrush. SPF, which essentially updates the SMTP model,
is like first controlled burn in a long time.
If, in the future, we wish to minimize disruptions, perhaps
we should make provision for controlled burns; we should set
maximum terms on standards.
I'm fairly sure that one day we will find that SPFv1 has run
out of steam. When that day comes, progressives will want
everybody to do another round of upgrades. But
conservatives will be happy with the status quo.
Progressives will find that they will have to fight two
battles: one to overcome inertia and get people to accept
the need for change at all, and one to actually agree on and
implement the change.
If we want to make life easier for the progressives in the
future, we can remove the need for the first battle, by
preparing everyone now for change in the future.
For example, we could put an expiration date into SPFv1.
Because the expiration date would be known ahead of time,
organizations could budget the necessary resources to
participate in the development of SPFv2, and an adoption
schedule could be worked out well in advance.
Of course, that expiration date could pass uneventfully;
people might find themselves quite happy with the way things
were, and conclude that SPFv2 should just be a copy of SPFv1.
If people aren't happy with SPFv1, at least everybody's
prepared for the necessary disruption that v2 will bring,
and we save ourselves the trouble of convincing the
conservatives.
Putting an expiration date into an RFC is a pretty radical
move, though. I don't know if it's been done before.
But legislators do it all the time: they write laws that
expire, and are either renewed at the time of expiration,
allowed to lapse, or are updated with new language.
Why shouldn't RFCs, the laws of the Internet, do the same?
What do people think?
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
The Inbox Event at the Marriott San Jose features SPF.
June 2: Email Accountability Symposium (free)
June 3: SPF Strategy BOF (free) where industry will
coordinate deployment timeline
Times: 6:30pm - 8pm, both sessions. http://www.inboxevent.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com