Extremely good points - I think we should all work towards:-
A) Not stifling the diversity of legitimate email businesses
(including antispam). This unfortunately means discarding
everything relating to digital-signature methods, because they ruin
loads of useful things, like spam tagging, timestamping, everything
that's implemented as a proxy, etc etc. Mengs original SPF was
extremely cleverly designed, and achieved this goal beautifully.
B) Outright reject everything that's patented. Patented matter can't
ever become standard (or if it ever were to - argument and dissent
would at least delay such standards that they would be useless by
the time, years later, that they saw light of day.)
Chris.
I doubt I will post to the ietf-mxcomp, but here is my opinion on how others
might want to try to refute these:
A> I changed my mind and decided to post to ietf-mxcomp:
A> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04008.html
A> "SenderID for the greater good?"
A> "...The larger question though is the greater good helped more
A> than hurt? IMHO, anti-forgery (especially per-domain anti-forgery)
A> is not a complete solution to spam, and thus doing any action that
A> would could stifle the diversity of competition in anti-spam, is
A> very dangerous to the greater good...".
A> Hope this helps.
A> -Shelby
A> -------
A> Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
A> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
A> http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
A> Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
A> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
A> please go to
A>
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com