On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think you all misunderstand Mengs motives here.
Microsoft could not have cared one way or the other. it was
Meng who convinced them to go this route.
I have some doubts. What Microsoft cared is apparently to bring their
patent into standard one way or the other. If that meant using willing
opensource advocate who had what was slowly becoming de-facto standard
to achieve this goal, so be it...
Basically the SPF syntax simply specified the set of IP addresses of the
outgoing mail servers. Once that information is out there anyone can
make use of that information in any way they please.
I disagree. SPF is not the list of outgoing mail servers, its the
list of mail sender policies in regards to how various email systems
are allowed to use given domain name in various email message parameters.
The spf=2 faction was a group of IETF blowhards who just have to feel
that they have done something important in order to save the group
from making a really serious error they would regret - even when their
proposal has absolutely zero impact apart from making a lot of stuff
that works today stop working for no reason at all.
SPF2 is not a faction at all. And if you're referring to IETF - its a
group of internet engineers who want develop interoperatable software
that can work well with each other and that is likely to have least bad
impact on existing infrastructure if deployed. That is an admirable goal.
On the other hand its organization supporting PRA that has the chance
of creating software that will not operate well with existing standards
and will likely create more problems for end-users then anything it can
possibly solve.
Your biggest problem here is not Microsoft, it is the spammers and the
people they pay to read these lists and stir up trouble.
Where did you get the idea that SenderID is anti-spam technology?
Oh, I forget - you listen only to the marketing people - but maybe then
you should start paying more attention to your emails and buying all that
is being promoted there, after all majority of emails are also sent by
marketeers and if they say it can increase your nose - it must be true!
Before making kneejerk posts to the list take a few moments to think
about whether someone has been deliberately pushing your buttons to
make an issue out of something unimportant. You won't see the people
responsible on the lists, but I have seen enough evidence that convinces
me that they have been at work making sure that every disagreement
obtains the widest possible readership.
Ah, you mean you don't like it that majority of people on the list don't
work for large corporations that are in bed with MS?
This is one of the reasons I would never have choosen the IETF
as a venue voluntarily. A consensus process is always vulnerable
to a denial of service attack.
A concensus process requires an agreement from all parties to work
on common goal and that they are able to achieve the result that every
party that participated can use. The last part is part of the reason
probably why we do not have consensus and can not achieve a standard
based on PRA and SenderID.
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/