----- Original Message -----
From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Moving Forward ...
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:13:30PM -0400, John Glube wrote:
|
| From the last go around, the clear consensus was that the
| spfv1 protocol should not consider pra checking.
|
OK, let me try to get some clarification on this.
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope? Let's set aside
for now the issue of scope disambiguation whether using a
macro or a /scope tag, and assume that PRA record content
would be the same as for mailfrom record content.
2) if MS changed the patent license to be compatible with
free software, would those objections go away?
There are a ton of *other* objections. The property rights were dinosaur
killers, but the requirement of implement an XML interpreter into the SMTP
servers and the legal and fiscal handling of SenderID key management remain
as serious issues.
3) would people rather see Microsoft promote an spf2.0/pra
syntax, while the opensource world promotes a v=spf1
syntax? Again, assume the contents of those records
would be the same; ignore scope disambiguation for now.
People would rather see Microsoft go on its own merry way and leave SPF
alone. They've demonstrated their inability to cooperate, legally and
politically, with this open source process by essentially wasting much of
the last year for you and for others involved in these forged email blocking
efforts, and they've tried to hijack credit for the SPF software itself.
Do a very clear, forthright push of Microsoft right the heck out of the
development part of the initiative. As the usefulness of the tools
progresses, they'll be forced to adopt it by user demand in their own SMTP
servers and their own configuration tools and can stop wasting our time with
bad software ideas.