Here is my opinion below, and I will try my best to stay on topic. Please post
to list.
At 10:57 AM 8/25/2004 +0200, you wrote:
The fear I have is that M$ will pursue this regardless of what we or MARID
say or do. Can anyone think of a specific case where M$ dropped the pursuit
of a patent? Once the patent is granted - which is not a fore-gone
conclusion, but is much more likely than not, given the weight of M$'s legal
team and the methodolgy of the US patent office - the patent-holder will be
calling the shots, and the internet community will have to comply with what
M$ decrees,
I am have not read the patent nor the license you all are discussing.
I will give a generalized observation, which may or may not be applicable
(given my lack of knowledge of details of the IPR in this case). Sorry lacking
time to read all that IPR...
I have seen opinions that SenderID is complex and that it is difficult to
characterize exactly what it's mechanisms will do in real-world.
I do not know Microsoft's goals. There are instances in the past, where if
Microsoft does not control and own something, then it uses a technique called
"embrace and innovate" (or something akin to that) to gain control. Examples
are Java (first embraced and innovated, then supplanted with .Net C#), W3C
(many IE extensions), etc.. You will read often Bill Gates say, "we must
protect our right to innovate".
I do not disagree with Microsoft's right to innovate and attempt to extend
standards without a standards "process". De facto standards are standards in a
way.
Thus I think the bigger issue is why has SPF classic not already been adopted
at the rate of a virus? If we could address that, then this Microsoft issue
would be a non-issue. Microsoft would just be any other extension trying to
gain adoption, and they would live or die in marketplace by the licensing terms
they set (instead of licensing being sanctioned by IETF). I have some specific
ideas on this.
Some of you may have seen the recent post where I suggest a "forgery
probability" specification option for "all" in order to possibly make the
cost/benefit curve more attractive to large ISPs (I do not claim to know if it
is an original suggestion):
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/1022.html
or look elsewhere for a solution that does something akin to
sender-ID.
If you are referring to protecting the "responsible sender" (i.e. usually the
"From:" address), I only want to make a small whisper that perhaps take another
look at SenderKeys (or not! :-). I believe SenderKeys (or something else like)
can help SPF, by providing another option forward to accomplish "-all" for some
scenarios at lower cost/benefit, so that SPF could focus FIRST on rapid (virus
like) adoption of a "probability" mechanism for "all".
It does not have to be SenderKeys. I have no particular need to spend all my
time creating a new standard. I would love someone else to champion what ever
is required.
[...]
I fear that the WG have walked into the trap - I just hope that SPFclassic
is not touched by this,
Ditto again above.
[...]
Cheers and Regards,
Shelby
Please do not flame me. I am only trying to help. Apologies if we all got
started with friction. My fault I guess.