In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0411260236020(_dot_)12095-100000(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
And getting back to SPF, I took some notes on the statistics that
were presented at well.
1. Godaddy statistics (?)
7% of emails go Godaddy have SPF records
18% of emails are rejected based on SPF
14% of SPF emails are from known spammers
2. Earthlink numbers
90% of emails that passes SPF is spam
90% of emails that fails SPF is spam
40% of emails that does not publish is spam
I was only listening to the summit on the phone, and so I didn't see
any of the slides and I couldn't hear a lot of people who weren't
speaking into the mic.
That said, I got the impression that, like 83.7% of all statistics,
earthlink's were made up on the spot.
On separate note sheet I have the following from the 1st day:
NIST person said that "SPF has largely been consumed by SenderID"
[and note to self to remind them that it is not]
Yeah, and it appears they aren't the only one with this impression. I
think that is something the SPF community needs to decide on. Is SPF
just an "essential part of SenderID"? I think the people who have
signed the SPF community's position on Sender ID page[1] are saying
"No. Sender ID is *not* SPF". However, there are many notable people
involved with the SPF community that have not signed it.
[1] http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html
My notes also say that there was very bad guy from "Association for
Competitive Technology" on the first panel who tried to argue that
opensource should be ignored when accepting a standard (my notes
have such words for him that I can't even put in public mail list).
He also had long whitepaper on that topic named "Open Standards Patent
Policies and Open Source Software Implementations" [...]
Is this the same one as found here?
http://actonline.org/documents/041109%20ACT%20Whitepaper%20on%20OSS%20and%20Open%20Standards%20FINAL.pdf
After seeing all that I understood that he was lobbyist paid by
"you know who" to say "you know what" and this association despite
its name is actually setup to promote anti-competitive standards
and technology. I'm warning you about it right now because you may
see this name come up in regards to SenderID or something else
that M$ is trying to push through.
Yeah, I kind of felt sorry for Daniel Quinlan. The IETF guy obviously
thought that patent encumbered RFCs was fine, there was the MS lawyer
and apparently someone else who thought that all problems with MS's
license were purely theoretical.
-wayne