From: "AccuSpam" <support(_at_)accuspam(_dot_)com>
Given that: "The IPR and license of SenderKeysTM will be detailed later
in a separate document." How do you expect anyone here to take you
seriously at this time?
Fair enough. See the page again. Added that the license will be free.
So it would appear that you are making this up as you go along - according
to the advice and helpful comments you get from this mail-list??????
they might just take some idea(s) mentioned in that discussion and
claim them as part of 'their IP', for which rights and licenses are not
yet known
If you invent something first, or provide convincing prior art by
discussing it first,
and we can not prove we invented before you did, then it isn't our
invention. That
is my understanding of US patent law. May be different in other
countries.
It is - get real - this is international - not USA only!!
The way things are going all I can see is that every one will have
their own "anti-forgery" solution and the mess will continue
This is indicative of defects in previous proposals. A solution which
has no major defects or unreasonable costs will unify.
What is the defect in SPF then?
So what is proposed here is that all the potential spam is to be
auto-responded
If a "From:" address is blacklisted, you can be fairly sure it *IS* spam,
not just potentially spam.
*fairly* sure is not good enough - too many false positives implied here.
Well that's going to double my bandwidth costs caused by spam.
If your ISP or AccuSpam server side is doing it, it does not cost you
anything. Besides as senders adopt, the responses stop because
the forgery has been identified.
I pay my ISP to connect me - if their costs go up - so will mine.
force all my friends and relations to do something
technical with their MTA's SMPT
No it only requires people, who are being forged and already receiving a
lot
of bounces, to upgrade the MUA (not MTA), i.e. their email client program.
Which is just about everyone who has a private domain name - that's a tall
order for loads of people who are not tech savvy.
And including the private key in the auto-response sounds a bit daft too
I agree. It should be changed to request mechanism, where the MUA does
a request over secure channel such as HTTPS. Will modify the
specification.
That'll be 50 euros plus 1euros per implementation please :-p
And who or what is "SenderKeysTM authority" controlled by?
That is the power and elegance. It is isn't controlled by any one entity.
C'mon then - who *is* it controlled by ??????
left hand menu of your site is just short of being unreadable
in Mozilla 1.8a3
That is indicative of Mozilla problems. At < 1% marketshare, that buggy
browser is not mainstream, nor worth effort to code for.
Mozilla is the only compliant browser I've seen mentioned in this thread so
far......
Looks perfect in IE.
Non compliant - buggy - costs lots. Yes I use it - but I also use mozilla,
opera, lynx, netscape, etc - just to make sure my web-pages are working
well in all the main ones. (see my post to spf-help).
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492