-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
"...
Security Technologies
This promise applies to all existing versions of the following
specifications: [...]
RFC 4408 - Sender Policy Framework: Authorizing Use of Domains in “Mail
From” [...]
"
So, not only do they abuse existing SPF records in an inappropriate,
incompatible way (by applying SPF records to RFC822 "From:"), now they
explicitly claim rights on rfc 4408.
I'm sure people will tell me if I see this the wrong way. Go ahead
please.
If the council agrees with me: what is going to be done?
Well, I have been ranting about Microsoft plagiarising SPF before[1]. So
far, though, they have managed to avoid claiming authorship or other
rights _explicitly_. I still do not see them claiming rights _explicit-
ly_. As I see it, they are merely suggesting rights implicitly.
The question is what to do about it. I don't see what we can do about it
except contacting them and asking them to clarify on the relevant web
pages that they do NOT own any rights to SPF or RFC 4408. This is
probably something that Wayne, as one of the authors, should do. Any
comments, Wayne?
I don't think, however, that suing them over it is viable, or would do any
good in the first place.
I'm interested in reading other opinions.
References:
1. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/21315/focus=21332
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFPWRgwL7PKlBZWjsRArWtAKDXeQl8l8rWXEDJ/jpZ15YIr0yW8ACgnTw4
f9UPw8h3sHwFAb7p4f0xraQ=
=yQoP
-----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