Re: Engineering, Politics and Internet and how it relates to SPF (SPF 2/

BTW - espf.org can also be considered short for "email spf" if you like too
(and then we change the meaning to extended if desired in the future).

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:

> Sure, go ahead and include espf too, if selected I'll transfer it to SPF
> trustee (but like Hector proposed I consider it more for for SPFng).
>
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, johnp wrote:
>
> > William -
> >
> > You have not yet confirmed that you are willing to let the project use the 
> > espf domain names you registered, could you let me know either way please? 
> > espf.com is already registered so yours would not appear in the list of 
> > "complete sets", but if you want to pledge it to the project, I will 
> > include it in the rest of the list for the sake of completeness.
> > Slainte,
> > JohnP
> >
> > william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > > I would have mentioned about espf.org on the list - you beat me to it.
> > >
> > > But I do not see any reason why I should have said something to you
> > > since you do not have domain by that name yourself and have already 
> > > mentioned the term publicly clearly not intending to use it privately.
> > > And btw go ahead and compare to what has happened on spf multiple times -
> > > why do you think there is libsrs and libsrs2 or libsrs and libspf and 
> > > libspf2? They are all public terms, so get used to that it can happen.
> > > P.S. You maybe "uncompromising ethical person" but the world we leave in
> > > is not built like that. Instead of letting your heat out in public every 
> > > time you see something that is not up to your standards, you may want to 
> > > consider asking about it privately or politely pointing out that you do
> > > not agree [Note: I suffer from some of the same problems myself...]
> > >
> > > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Hector Santos wrote:
> > >
> > > > William,
> > > >
> > > > I have learned a lot about you with your last stunt.  So I don't have 
> > > > much
> > > > respect for this or anything else you have to say from this point on. 
> > > > If
> > > > you say you registered ESPF.ORG for the SPF protection, then fine.  But 
> > > > the
> > > > way you went about it, it was pretty sneaky and somewhat unethical.  It 
> > > > says
> > > > a lot about your character. Even though you didn't need it,  the proper
> > > > gentlemen would has sent an email telling me of your intentions.  You did
> > > > not do that, but instead got the news from someone else via private email
> > > > That just tells you how others may see it too.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks my view, my thinking, my long term reputation of uncompromising
> > > > ethical person. Always been that way and will die that way.  I don't 
> > > > stomp
> > > > on people, I don't sneak around or play games.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty disgusting if you ask me.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
> > > > http://www.santronics.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
> > > > Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
> > > > To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:26 PM
> > > > Subject: Engineering, Politics and Internet and how it relates to SPF
> > > > ([spf-discuss] SPF 2/3 maybe it is time to get this going)
> > > >
> > > > > i
> > > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Hector Santos wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > experience with IETF by now to understand why they'd never agree to it
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > I have experience to know that a separating of disciplines - enough to
> > > > > > confuse any matter,  but I do think they are just industry veterans
> > > > > > (managers) and if I ever did had the privy to argue the case with them,
> > > > we
> > > >
> > > > > > wouldn't be in this position :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead and argue. Next meeting is in Paris end of July. If you didn't
> > > > > take a vacation yet, Europe is always good consideration and one week in
> > > > > Paris is great even if couple days you spend at the conference.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I really don't think you arguing it will make any difference (not 
> > > > > more
> > > > > so then me or Frank or several other people individually - this is not
> > > > IETF
> > > >
> > > > > of old any more). So you should view in that sense as to why I organized
> > > > > 'SPF Organization' poll in November - it was the last opportunity to do
> > > > > so with how things were going and it worked very well as I see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think many can argue with sound technical common sense and in
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > > vain, I am an optimist and always felt that common sense always does
> > > > > > prevail.
> > > > >
> > > > > "sound technical common sense always prevails" is eternal hope of an
> > > > > engineer and it may work fine until you mix politics and large companies
> > > > > with agenda not on technical excellence but marketing their own products
> > > > > to maximize the revenue. If sound technical reasons mattered to them,
> > > > > we'd not have proprietary .net and java would be an open standard. We'd
> > > > > not have OS so widely used that is one of the biggest contributors to
> > > > > increase of spam by 400% in the last 2 years - we might instead be using
> > > > > better engineered OS/2 or switched to GNU/Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm optimist too that best engineering will ultimately prevail, but I'm
> > > > > also a realist that it'd not happen just because its better engineered
> > > > > and that we have to work within environment we're in (play on their 
> > > > > board
> > > > > with their rules) if the result is to be achieved (or otherwise the only
> > > > > other options are to choose different board or force rules change for
> > > > > existing board).
> > > > >
> > > > > > But I also think the way SPF is being done here can be better - better
> > > > > > argued for.  Too much political conflicts.  Stay away from that and 
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > present the facts - the common sense - make them realize this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its easy to say but in practice SPF not being accepted for proposed
> > > > > standard did not much to do with technical presentations. I've seen
> > > > > proposals with less development and no implementation being accepted
> > > > > easily - but there was no politics involved there.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > ESPF sounds nice though and easier to use then saying unifiedspf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its all about how you put things, and if ESPF is presented as the
> > > > Extended
> > > >
> > > > > > Features to SPF in the same vain ESMTP presents the extended features 
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > SMTP,   they will have very little to argue again this.  So its more
> > > > than
> > > >
> > > > > > just "sounding good,"  it is common sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you must remember that originally Meng and MS wanted things 
> > > > > presented
> > > > > in opposite as SID and SPF being part of it. It sounded good them but 
> > > > > not
> > > > > to us. Now we present it the other way around, do you really think they
> > > > > are going to accept it given what they still say about SID?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it maybe technically right, but its not going to fly unless MS 
> > > > > agreed
> > > > > to have SID considered as part of ESPF or UnifiedSPF or whatever. Its 
> > > > > not
> > > > > just about us calling it that, its about them agreeing and accepting 
> > > > > this
> > > > > arrangement!
> > > > >
> > > > > > After all,  SPF1 is the current pseudo standard and there is NO way on
> > > > > > earth people are just going to DROP it for SPF2 when there is no clear
> > > > > > advantage and in fact, could cause more problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > People? Who are the people? How would they know - by IETF agreeing with
> > > > > both SID and SPF being RFCs on equal footing? By their managers telling
> > > > > them they want this deployed ASAP because they've read it in CIO 
> > > > > magazine
> > > > > and because MAAWG tells its a good thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just consider this: We and many mail server vendors existed in the
> > > > > > commercial BEFORE the internet.  Do you really think we added SMTP just
> > > > > > because it was the "IETF" standard?   No the standard existed for
> > > > YEARS - we
> > > >
> > > > > > added it because people wanted a common framework that was not
> > > > proprietary
> > > >
> > > > > > and since more and more people demanded it, it was then offered.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was common framework because IETF developed it in such a way. It was
> > > > > used by you and others because ietf is de-facto technical specification
> > > > > organization for internet protocols and internet became de-facto global
> > > > > network replacing other initiatives (like FidoNet, DECNET, MCIMAIL,
> > > > > Microsoft Network 1995, Compuserve, etc), this happened in big part
> > > > > because of the protocols that were developed for it by IETF and openness
> > > > > in the network connectivity (result of open protocol development 
> > > > > process).
> > > > > But there are still people who don't like this openness and how it all
> > > > > happened. Its not something that can be acceptable to some governments
> > > > > or some large companies that setup proprietary networks. They can not
> > > > > change Internet immediately but they can change individual parts and can
> > > > > try to effect Internet on global scale by attempting to replace ICANN
> > > > > by WGIG and IETF with ITU. Do you not follow global developments? You
> > > > > should, see http://www.wgig.org and think hard about what is being said.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But we just didn't add SMTP because it now the IETF.
> > > > > > SPF1 is here. No one can change this.  Not even IETF.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that the thing - they still can. What happened in the last 6 months
> > > > > made it much harder, but it is not yet impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So you compromise - SPF people should welcome "extensions" including
> > > > > > SID as long as it is published as ESPF draft and the IETF should also
> > > > > > welcome this and other new ESPF extended drafts because we have a basic
> > > > > > framework in place - SPF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I'm sure SPF people would welcome extensions, bit I doubt they
> > > > > wants replacement, which SID is trying to do. Its basic matter of
> > > > > who is in the control at the base and what the base is (and I'd like
> > > > > it to be IETF, but they must prove themselves for it...)
> > > > >
> > > > > > The basic framework SHOULD not begin with SPF2 because it basically
> > > > > > enforces only 1 way to operate - it enforces the PAYLOAD  and this
> > > > > > is by far the single most barrier to its acceptance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We all can see new ESPF idea that are not related to SID.  Suppose
> > > > someone
> > > >
> > > > > > proposes a new 2822 HEADER such as:
> > > > > >        SENDER-DOMAIN: <responsible domain>
> > > > >
> > > > > I did, you must have missed one of my drafts...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then a ESPF draft can be written for it I won't be able to do this with
> > > > > > SID if it was the official standard and not SPF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is what you have to present to the Hardies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You need to talk about the future because we still have to research the
> > > > spam
> > > >
> > > > > > problem.  We can't lock ourselves into a patented SID - single
> > > > solution -
> > > >
> > > > > > framework that has absolutely NO guarantee of working whatsoever and if
> > > > fact
> > > >
> > > > > > present more problems than it solves.
> > > > >
> > > > > And all luck to you presenting this to Mr. Hardie....
> > > > > (you some of us did try it already with technical arguments and 
> > > > > research)
> > > > > --
> > > > > William Leibzon
> > > > > Elan Networks
> > > > > william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
> > > > >
> > > > > -------
> > > > > Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
> > > > > Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
> > > > > Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
> > > > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
> > > > subscription,
> > > >
> > > > > please go to
> > > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------
> > > > Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
> > > > Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
> > > > Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
> > > > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
> > > > subscription,
> > > > please go to 
> > > > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net