spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] 2006 election campaign

2006-01-15 22:23:15
I accept my nomination for the 2006 SPF Council.

Here are the things I consider important for the coming year:

o  Top-of-the-list:  Public relations.
   (Not to plagiarize Julian here.)

   (This is more urgent than the slow-moving state of the
   standard, in the sense that no matter how the 
   appeal-versus-no-appeal decision goes, the standard will
   eventually end up to be almost exactly matching its current
   state, and there's little anyone can really do to speed
   this process.  Thus, day-to-day work will generally focus
   elsewhere.)

   It looks to me as if there are still widespread 
   misunderstandings on the basics goals of SPF, even among
   folks (outside the general spf community) who seem to
   understand the specifics.

   This leads to logical-sounding fallacies that will quite
   naturally make folks not want to implement SPF on either
   the publishing or receiving side.

   To address this I will:

   o  Work to improve website content, especially content
      that addresses these fallacies.

   o  Ask spf programmers to add code or hooks to allow
      as an end result that individual recipients can
      easily enable or disable spf checking.  (So 
      ISPs/ESPs will be more likely to allow more
      end-user control.)

   o  Push for regular press releases to keep spf progress
      in the press.

o  Spec standardization:  I'm currently undecided on the
   issue of whether to push for an appeal; however, I am
   currently leaning towards the appeal process.

   My reasoning is that submitting a standard to a 
   standards implies a responsibility towards not only
   working within the written and unwritten rules of the
   organization, but also a responsibility to at least
   some minor assistance in it's long-term stability.

   In other words, I am currently concerned that avoiding
   the next level of appeal almost pushes problems under the
   rug.

   As I have seen other organizations seemingly abandon ietf
   processes or participation in an irresponsible manner, I
   want to make sure that we do not do the same.

   However, I'm still undecided on whether I think an additional
   appeal would hurt or help spf long-term, as well as whether 
   avoiding an appeal would be acceptable or irresponsible for
   the above reasons.

   In general however, the importance of following through
   with spec standardization, or helping Wayne in whatever way
   I can, of course goes without saying.

o  Continue to collect ideas for the next version of spf and lay
   the groundwork for the next round of standardization to not 
   need to be as confrontational.

   (In particular, re-examine the authentication-header 
   standards development, as something along those lines should
   eventually replace Received-SPF and still be compatible with
   other anti-forgery methods.)

o  Talk with ISPs and ESPs to find the *real* reasons they're
   not deploying SPF, and find a way to address their concerns.

   (Note:  As a contractor/consultant, this presents me the
   potential of billable consulting time.  Please be aware
   of this if you believe this represents a conflict-of-interest
   for me.  I don't believe it does, but I want to disclose 
   any such possible issues.)

o  Low priority:

   Try again to approach Microsoft to see if they would be
   interested in licensing their mail-forgery related patents
   in an Open Source compatible manner.  This has been tried
   this in the past and failed, but we should try once more just
   in case there's a possibility of healing-unnecessary-rifts
   and allowing for a wider range of future SPF standards.  This
   is a lower priority item however, given past unsuccessful 
   attempts, and given the fact that the Microsoft patents don't
   seem to impact any of our work.

   (Note:  I am separately pushing for a patent cross-license
   agreement to handle such Open Source issues, so in a sense
   this is a potential conflict-of-interest in that I have  
   non-spf reasons for wanting to ease any unnecessary patent
   issues.  The only reason I brought up this low-priority issue
   is because of my dual reasons for wanting to solve the patent
   issue.)

o  Help those who are really doing all the implementation and
   coding work by staying out of their way and making things
   easier for them.  (Basically useful best-current-practices
   documents to help folks not repeat each other's mistakes,
   good links on our site, etc.)

o  Draft Wayne back into the council.  (Is this allowed?  :-)  )
 
-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>