Seth,
You and I have some fundamental disagreements on the bona
fides of people.
I simply point out SpamCop, is owned by IronPort. IronPort
also owns Bonded Sender. This is a sender paid scheme.
SpamCop is the block list behind Bonded Sender.
Spamhaus another block list is behind .Mail a sender pay
proposal for accreditation now before ICANN.
So presumably all the folks who are involved in these
proposals are in the pay of senders.
Habeas is a sender paid scheme. Presumably that is just
another ploy to get people's money.
If your going to slap around ISIPP, and the people involved
with that organization, because it is sender paid, then
best slap around SpamCop, SpamHaus and all the support
SpamHaus has put together for its .Mail proposal.
Absolutely no difference.
Based on your criteria, SpamCop has already sold out and
Spamhaus is about to sell out.
You imply that I am a "carpet bagger." Thanks bud.
I mean really, lovely rhetoric, but it solves little.
Why? Meng postulated on a proposal. I put forward an
avenue.
Your response? You essentially said the FTC would not do
anything with reported violations and you accuse the NGO I
suggested of being in the pay of senders, so it won't work.
Has anyone bothered to pick up the phone and get in touch
with the FTC and see if an arrangement could be worked out?
Naw. That might put rest to the theory that the FTC are
simply a bunch of fatheads who are useless.
As to the NGO, even though all the board members of the NGO
have their own jobs and are all unpaid volunteers, because
they are associated with an organization which you perceive
to be in the pay of senders this taints them.
But, hey let's not let the facts get in the way of
perception.
Like the man said, you can't please all of the folks all of
the time.
Besides, if you don't wish to access these or any other
service you are entirely free to do so.
Let me conclude this part of the discussion by saying,
although I think you are wrong, I am grateful for your
input and insight.
However, there is something far more important which has
come up than discussing what might be at some future point
in time.
Let me be very blunt in my assessments:
* SPF has not become a protocol. It has been rejected in
favour of Sender-ID which is about to go forward to last
call to the IETF MARID working group.
* Whether Sender-ID proceeds beyond last call or not is an
open question.
Right now over at MARID we are seeing an interesting power
play unfold, which may at the end of the day see something
far different come out of the box then everyone thought was
going to happen.
This community may feel what happens over at MARID is
irrelevant to how this community proceeds. I am not so sure.
* SPF is 'free' and it sets a peg for implementation of a
reputation service.
However, I am now honestly concerned that without a
fundamental amendment to Sender-ID to allow for SMTP mail
from checks within a formal protocol, SPF will end up being
simply a glorious experiment and no more.
All last week some of us argued quite strenuously for
inclusion of an SMTP mail from check in the Marid protocol.
As you know the discussion started the week before, with
the version string change.
The discussion ultimately moved to the Marid mailing list.
The Friday drafts rejected the request.
Yesterday, I took a look at the way the land was looking
and thought ok, the world is not perfect, but I can live
with it.
Then today, in response to a post made by Chris Haynes
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03314.html
Meng made an important post to the MARID mailing list,
reopening the discussion on including SMTP mail from checks
in Sender-ID:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03324.html
Margaret Olson and I voiced support:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03331.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03339.html
I urge folks to read this material. Why?
Doug Otis of Maps just put forward a document which truly
upsets the apple cart. This was apparently done at the
request of Marshall Rose one of the Co-chairs of the
working group.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03341.html
What I thought was settled has just become unstuck, like a
shot out of the blue.
Now people here may say who cares?
Well, if people want SPF to be more than merely a glorious
experiment it is time to pay attention and Meng can't fight
this battle alone.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004