On Oct 4, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Tim Kennedy wrote:
So do you. Their's might have had more guns, but yours controls
something people need even more today.... Email.
If some big players, like AOL and or Google are behind SPF ( and they
have published SPF records ) then we have a better than even chance of
making an SPF derived solution successful.
Exactly!
The "SPF Army" as it were consists of far more people than those who
post to this list. I would say that the general population of educated
administrators have at least heard of SPF and know its goals /and/ know
of the MS patent issues surrounding PRA. So your "army" is just waiting
for its command to march and start implementing an open,
well-thought-out protocol which has no baggage and pays tribute to no
particular party.
We must remember that, at the the end of the day, a company such as MS
is a business out to make money for its shareholders. Being charitable
is rather down there on their list of priorities. If MS believes that
they can transform the current email infrastructure, which offers
virtually no footholds for "controlling ownership", and turn it into a
infrastructure such as SSL where one must pay to play... or risk having
their email left undeliverable... they'll follow through on it as best
as the can. Their PRA patents were just the first component in a scheme
such as that. Call out the tinfoil brigade if you must, but MS hasn't
done much to allay such fears since the patent news broke.
So no. No baggage in SPF. It must be pure, concise, and leave no doubt
that it is a open protocol AND fosters a unified protocol against spam.
/dale