wayne wrote:
> In <200506270543(_dot_)18605(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
>
>
>> Throughout the BoF, I had explained multiple times that, although there were some
people in the SPF project's community who had fundamental objections to having anything to
do with MS, the project as a whole was not against working out a standard in cooperation
with MS, provided that v=spf1 records were left alone, but that MS had never really shown
the desire to directly discuss the issue with the project.
>
>
>
> Thank you for making that point.
Yes, I agree completely. I would like to think that the folks in SPF are capable of a
non-emotive reaction to co-operation with MS.
>
> I would like to stress that the reverse is also true. While I'm sure
> there are some people in Microsoft who have fundemental objections to
> having anything to do with F/OSS projects, the people I have
> personally dealt with in MS with respect to SenderID (Harry, Jim,
> etc.) are out to destroy spam and email abuse, not F/OSS. They,
> however, work in the Exchange dept and they do not control MS's legal
> dept, nor the folks who created the MS DNS API, nor the folks at
> Hotmail/MSN.
>
This is very true from my experience in other fields also, mostly to do with PC operating
systems, they are polite and helpful, but just don't ask them to do anything that would
compromise their commercial position.
I believe we need to discover the "good guys" at Hotmail and MSN, and engage with them to
try and get the spf/sid issues in their mail systems discussed and some solutions found.
> Microsoft is a big company and like all companies that size many parts
> have no idea what other parts are doing and it is not uncommon for
> them to be working at cross purposes.
>
True. The worst cases are between the technical dept and the legal dept. Corporate
lawyers are notoriously predatory and unlikely to give an inch unless instructed from on
high. To get those instructions, we need to have come up with workable solutions that will
not compromise either camp more than the other. Claiming that MS shouldn't re-use v=spf1
is just not going to work, because someone else might start mis-using v=spf1 tomorrow,
making our argument with MS pretty irrelevant. What we *can* do is get some agreement with
the helpful MS guys on the re-wording of the sid ID. If the IETF agreed to the proposed
re-wording, it would be much easier for the hierarchy in MS to be approached by both
ourselves and the friendly MS people.
>
>
>> Then Andy suggested that perhaps the MAAWG could play an arbitrating role in achieving
an amicable agreement between the SPF project and MS to commonly agree on and promote a
new, post-v=spf1 record format that would be feature-compatible to both SPF and S-ID. I
responded that I could very well see this as a possible solution, even if that format
would support the PRA -- as long as MS stopped to re-use v=spf1 for non-RFC2821 identities.
>
>
>
> I think this would be good and helpful.
>
This is an excellent step and will help a lot if we start the ball rolling with the MS
guys. I think the SPF council should delegate this job to the relevant people and let them
get on with it and report back monthly.
Meantime we should make the appeal to the ITEF regarding the conflicting ID's.
Slainte,
JohnP