people who tune in to
this mailing list make their living trying to solve the spam
problem. Insulting them in any way will not work to your benefit
Not trying to insult any one. Just trying to be factual.
Write an RFC-type
document summarizing the SenderKeys approach and post it somewhere on
your site -- no browser issues with a text file.
I agree this is necessary over the long haul. Any volunteers to help?
However, I disagree that substantive debate is precluded, because
no one has complained about not being able to read the SenderKeys
overview. They only complained about the AccuSpam menu, and
AccuSpam is not relevant.
I think so far it is more political resistance to debate substantially.
That is of course expected, but in the end most (95%) people go
with the winner.
Hmmm. Is SPF only people in the 5% who refuse to admit IE won?
What does that say about the mainstream adoption of SPF?
What does that say about the design of SPF with philosophy
towards mainstream? Hmmm.
By conforming to the IETF's standard document format, you'll allow
people to quickly understand what SenderKeys is all about. And their
feedback will be exceptionally valuable to you in defining whatever it
is you are planning to sell.
Agreed. I am not familiar with writing RFCs, nor is any one who works
with me.
Help would be welcomed.
If you have a patent pending on the technique, you'll still be able to
cash out once the full patent is written and the technique is in
widespread use. Forget about trying to license it up front... That's
for really big companies like Microsoft
Thanks for advice, but our hope is Microsoft or other large entity will
adopt SenderKeys. AccuSpam.com alone can not carry it.
Just as Pobox.com alone could not carry SPF to widespread adoption.
AccuSpam wants SenderKeys to prosper because the other anti-forgery proposals
will not solve the e-mail forgery problem for most domains, because of the
reasons stated on the SenderKeys web page. If any other the other proposals,
e.g. SPF, DomainKeys, or SenderID, were going to solve the problem, then
there would be no need for us to propose SenderKeys.
AccuSpam does not intend to make $ directly on SenderKeys. We might
make $ on the anti-spam algorithms which are independent of SenderKeys.
We might get a lot of publicity for AccuSpam from proposing SenderKeys.
Thanks,
Shelby