spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Microsoft plagiarism

2006-06-24 08:56:29
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Julian Mehnle <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
[ 
http://www.emailauthentication.org/summit2006/pdfs/2_Summit_Scorecard_final.pdf 
]

Slide 4 on page 1:
| * You need:
|   * Good mechanics
|     (ie: authors of DKIM and SIDF)

Who are the authors of "SIDF"?  WTF??

*sigh*

No where on that slide does it say *who* the authors are.

That doesn't matter because SIDF is practically non-existent.  There's SPF 
and there's Sender ID.  Even if you consider "Sender ID Framework" to be 
equivalent to "Sender ID", that then means "authors of Sender ID", which 
ignores the "authors of SPF", with SPF clearly making up >75% of Sender 
ID.

It's like saying Kerberos was invented by Microsoft.

Microsoft, you gnomes, this is plagiarism!

It is?

Patrick Peterson doesn't even *work* for Microsoft, he works for
ironport.  Why are you assuming MS has anything to do with this tiny
snippet?

I admit I did not research who created these slides -- mea culpa for that.  
But it is pretty evident that they were strongly influenced by Microsoft's
"SIDF" propaganda, otherwise this misappropriation couldn't have happened.  
(Nowhere in their PR is MS making a point of SID NOT being original 
works.)

MS considers SPF to be part of the larger Sender ID Framework.  Meng
doesn't seem to have any objections to this characterization.

I am aware of that.

Julian: Before making such inflammatory charges, especially in public,
please do a little more investigation.  I'm more disappointed in what
you have done here than what MS did at that conference.

Despite not having researched the origin of said presentation, I did not 
make my accusation lightly and I am still standing behind it.

  "Not making a point of SID being derivative works"

and

  "not making a point of SID being derivative works _despite_ observing
  people misappropriating it to MS"

are two different things.  Up to a few hours ago, I could only observe MS 
doing the former, but now that I have seen the presentation you referenced 
I think it is Microsoft's responsibility NOT to stand by quietly and let 
things happen.  (Of course they won't do a thing about it, but that 
doesn't change the conclusion.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEnWBxwL7PKlBZWjsRAi+ZAKCgyE7omNFti2Pt9w3QwdHsPYqJTQCfUo7J
DChB5MJ9rhNQeYbE4Ys4x5w=
=gd+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
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