On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:07:06PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
| I just got off the phone with Paul_Roberts(_at_)idg(_dot_)com who is
| writing a story on Sender ID. I gave him my opinion that it
| was a good thing that MS's PRA checks could reuse v=spf1
| records.
|
| Anyone with a dissenting opinion is welcome to write to him
| directly, but soon because he is on deadline.
Folks are welcome to also contact stefanie(_dot_)olsen(_at_)cnet(_dot_)com
and educate her about the anti-PRA positions. Ditto for
Larry Seltzer, whose address you can find on the website at
http://www.eweek.com/author_bio/0,1772,a=2299,00.asp
Personally I think the world would be a better place if the
patents on PRA didn't exist. People who want to fight the
patent would probably get more mileage out of working with
the folks at http://www.pubpat.org/ rather than shouting on
this list, which Microsoft probably doesn't even read, about
what they think Microsoft should do. It looks kooky when
you do that.
I also think the world would be a better place if the patent
license was changed in the ways described in Larry Rosen's
submission to the FTC. But I don't see the point of trying
to fight the PRA using the v=spf1 spec as a weapon.
Look at it this way: we now have Microsoft telling people to
publish v=spf1 records. This is a big win for two reasons:
the people who were previously on the fence will now just do
it, and the people who hadn't heard of all this will now get
some exposure to SPF Classic.
On the technical front, what we really need to do now is
focus on trueing the following assertion:
If I am running Postfix, Qmail, Exim, or Sendmail, I am
able to download a package for my OS that has SPF and
SRS built in and ready to turn on.
Note the SRS requirement. We really have to crack the
forwarding nut or we're stuck in sight of the finish line.