From: Radu Hociung (radu(_dot_)spf(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org)
ecsd(_at_)transbay(_dot_)net wrote:
I wrote a scathing thing that said that until Microsoft gets rid of their
licensing (attempts),
>> whatever they offer for protocols should be scrupulously ignored. If SPF is
taking a hit because
>> "something better has come along", well, nothing from Microsoft is "better".
[snip]
I think SPF should stay away from this type of comment and
flame-throwing, if it is to be treated as a serious protocol. If
Microsoft has something to contribute that does not threaten the
open-standard/open-source status, I'm willing to consider it.
It's not SPF's comment, it's mine. You say ".. that does not threaten
the open-source status", well, that is the issue. MS introduces this
Sender-ID thing but expects people to sign license agreements to use it.
Meanwhile, they just grab SPF and incorporate it into their thing, thanks
for the freeware, Meng.
Various people have discussed how SPF+SRS is good enough to use in place
of "Sender ID" and, finally, we return to "If MS has something to contribute
that does not threaten the open-source ..." -- it is well known that Microsoft
despises open source and does in fact do what it can to establish its own
standards unilaterally so as to prevent third-party interoperability (unless
you buy a license for the secret.) MS is not to be trusted. I have said, if
Sender-ID is a good idea, then MS shows they are a real mensch of a player
by open-sourcing it (no licenses.) If they won't do that, then the thing
they are trying to introduce should be ignored no matter how good it is -
because any use of it will always have the sticky tendril of "what if we
decide to start charging for it, hey hey?" attached to it. No point pretending
that a staunch opponent of open-source can be worked with; MS will not play
a non-zero-sum game with you, and like the PRC can wait for their schemes of
dominance to mature over the course of several years. How many times does the
dog have to bite you before you decide it's just a mean mutt and you shoot it
to get on with your life? Convictions for antitrust felonies notwithstanding?
I'm sorry, but it's analogous to letting Republicans run the agency that sets
standards for voting machines. If you "trust", you lose. They prove their "good"
intentions by giving their ideas away on THE SAME BASIS AS SPF WAS - and if
Bill fiddles and frets about, "oh gee but I OWN this idea" - yeah well, we see
clearly that MS doesn't care about cleaning up mail fraud more than it cares
that
it "owns" some idea concerned with it. The hubris of MS's presuming upon the
image that they are a serious software company and are experts in any way -
the entire computing infrastructure of the planet will benefit greatly if MS
is removed from the scene. Who needs a selfish, selfish, selfish,
self-aggrandizing,
presumptuous corporation sitting on various IETF task forces "contributing
ideas"?
Why did the industry ignore the microchannel architecture and give IBM the
finger?
Why did the industry invent K56Flex versus just using USR's x2 technology?
Because nobody wants to be beholden. So why deal with a company that has that
Modus Operandi in its bones - heads we win, tails we win, and we copyright every
sneeze we make.
"Microsoft" is not responsible for the ideas that they come up with; the people
who work at MS are the ones responsible. So it would be fine with me for the
Microsoft corporation to be dissolved, so that all the smart people who worked
at MS can start bringing their good ideas to the marketplace of ideas - sans
ulterior motives and corporate machinations.
"SPF" can take a neutral attitude toward Sender-ID if it chooses. My attitude
is that the introduction of Sender-ID with its inclusion of SPF is a muddying
of the waters, and I assume that that is one reason there is a delay and some
confusion in bringing SPF in. So if MS introduces an idea on self-serving terms,
that interferes with, delays or confuses a worthy open-source standard, they
deserve
as much excoriation as they get. Hint: look for MS's contribs for Exim, Postfix,
Qmail, Sendmail for the Sender-ID thing. Thought so.
-ecsd