spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the Seth Hypothetical

2004-10-26 01:02:05
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:54:31AM +1000, Ian Peter wrote:
(chunks deleted) - Seth wrote along with his ridiculous Richard
"Meng" Nixon analogy

 

No one is questioning your right to talk to Microsoft as an 
individual, as a representative of PoBox or as a 
representative of the private group that Phillip informed us 
of.  We most definitely are questioning your speaking in 
behalf of the SPF community until such time as you convince 
us that you are negotiating for our goals.  It does not 
currently look like that, but perceptions can be deceiving.  
The onus is on you to change our perceptions.

--


Who is "we"?

My understanding of the 'we': those who actively contribute to spf by
writing code, writing standards, helping people set up spf, participate
actively in discussions about the technicalities of the future
standards, etc. Most of this, mind you, for free. Meng does have this
question to ask himself: 'do i care about these people enough to
consider their worries or can i do without this community?'. Because it
is clear that 'we' (I consider myself to be included) are not content
with the way microsoft capitalizes on this work, with help from Meng. I
have been tempted to leave spf alltogether on more than one occasion,
and so have many others who made very important contributions to spf. 

Someone on this list stated 'SPF is dead without Meng'. I disagree, SPF
is dead without the likes of Wayne and Markl and James C and Shevek and
all those other players who support spf by contributing in it in a
constructive manner.

What are the goals of the "SPF community?"

An open standard, unencumbered by commercial corporate interests, that
prevents forgery, phising and ultimetaly: spam. SPF Classic prevents the
first, spf++ should address more of the rest.

Where are these "goals" incompatible with Meng's stated objective

At the point that Meng agrees with microsoft's patent license and
microsoft's commercial wish to make the solution a MUA thing no matter
what.

" My objective has always been to reach a spam-free future based
on open standards that everyone can implement and that don't have
to cost anyone anything. "

Implementing PRA costs me the disclosure of my business plans, they
thereby obtain disclosure of what the competition is planning and gain
an unfair advantage in the market. This will cost the competition.

Koen


-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/