In <e941453904092417393207a235(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com> "Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>"
<shedevil(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
In any case, in any public statements or even statements likely to be
attributed to the "SPF Community", should not not NOT talk about
abolishing software patents, or even how broken the patent system is -
the former will cause people to think we're all raving loonies with an
ax to grind against the system and reduce any credibility, the latter
will at very least simply detract from the primary issue which is
getting an authentication system in place (umm..that *is* our primary
focus, right?)
Yes, our primary focus is on reducing email forgery. However, that is
being made much harder by the bad patent and the bad patent license.
Personally, I don't see a problem with mentioning these facts. The
public needs to know of examples of when patents have screwed the
public over. I didn't say that this should be the primary focus of
the statement.
However, Meng's suggested wording of:
Meanwhile, working with Microsoft on Sender ID, we have
defined a spf2.0 specification which will be backward
compatible with the spf1 records out there; and it will give
senders in unusual situations greater expressiveness.
This doesn't sit well with me. Meng may be working with MS, but MS
isn't working with the rest of us from what I can tell. Until such
time as MS is willing to license their patent (or withdraw their
patent application) so that F/OSS can participate, I don't think we
should do anything with the PRA. Since the PRA is about the only
thing that MS appears to be interested in, I can't see much reason for
working with MS.
-wayne