In <20041022132413(_dot_)GV1135(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 04:58:31AM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
|
| Let me suggest a thought experiment. What if we talked to MS like we were
| really intent on every word they said ... and then ignored every bit of it.
| Nod our heads in agreement and offer compliments for every one of their
| suggestions ... and then go off and do the opposite. Act surprised and
| injured if they accuse us of being uncooperative ... then continue to follow
| your own agenda.
This is, of course, what Meng has been trying to do all a long. He
has even been somewhat public about it this is why MS et al call up
Meng and Mark and complain about how they haven't abandoned SPF
classic and how they have sending mixed messages.
| If after all that "cooperation", MS still can't satisfy
| the license requirements of the OSS MTA community, we can shake our heads
| and say, "Gee, I can't understand why this didn't work out". We look like
| gentlemen who have gotten the runaround and they look like, well, Microsoft.
| But during all this, we keep our eye directly on the ball, quietly get our
| stuff implemented and deployed while continuing to "cooperate" and stall.
The problem is that Meng does not appear to ever want to do this part
of your thought experiment.
I dunno. If we did that, the folks who we were counting on
to implement and get code out into the market might get
distracted by the excitement of fighting with Microsoft
... the particularly paranoid ones might even misinterpret
the "diplomacy" as being in bed, and abandon the project
entirely simply because they don't get your strategy! And
folks who had a particular axe to grind with MS might spend
more time frothing about how they deserve to lose, than
actually working to win.
Yes Meng, the problem with creating deception on a massive scale in an
open community makes this strategy very hard to do. I think taking a
straight forward and honest route is going to be more effective for
us.
Writing SPF code is fun and important, which is why so much
of it got done so quickly.
Tilting at Microsoft is fun, but not important.
Writing MTA and SRS code is important, but not fun.
A lot of MTA code has been written, I can't think of an SPF library
that was written that didn't immediately support at least one MTA.
SRS is important for people like pobox.com, but less important to
others. As I've said many times, the "forwarding problem" has turned
out to be a *MUCH* smaller problem than I had expected. I'm not
saying it doesn't exist, just that the preasure isn't enough to
motivate forwarders to get SRS support written and installed.
As Rand requested, I will add a modifier to v=spf1
indicating "do not interpret in PRA scope" so the purists
can be satisfied.
*IF* a modifier is added, I strongly think the default should be for
SPFv1 records to represent what SPFv1 records have always represented
and for the modifier to allow other interpretations.
But, as others have pointed out, unless you get something signed in
writting by MS, none of this makes any difference 'cause MS will
probably write a spec that does whatever they want anyway.
Whether or not we go with your plan,
Please Meng, don't be so deceptive. The plan that Seth outlined is
exactly the plan you have been talking about in IRC since last
January.
So, in conclusion, Seth, I think your strategy won't work,
because the folks on the list probably won't get it,
Good to hear it. When are you going to change your strategy?
That way, ten years later we can get together
and reminisce about how we could've been a contender, and
grouse about how the right technology never wins. I mean,
that's what, deep down in our hearts, we really want to do,
right?
Yeah, right, I remember last winter when you were saying that MS could
roll out CallerID in a few weeks with a service patch. I didn't
believe it then, and I'm far more convinced that MS won't release
anything with SenderID/CallerID/SPF for at least a year, if not 2 or
three years.
You might argue that MS systems like hotmail will check SenderID
records, but I doubt this. Remember, these folks don't even check to
see if the MAIL FROM domain even exists. CallerID was developed by
the Exchange folks, not the hotmail folks. There is no reason to
believe that hotmail will adopt this.
-wayne