> -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Mehnle > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:41 PM
> Malcolm Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why do you, and others, seem so upset with a proposal > that *is*, in > > at least some regards, more secure and more useful (to large ISPs)? > > I'm getting upset because I think that YASAF is vast overkill > for the sender address forgery, But not the legal proof bit, 'cos SPF is total non-kill for that... > while some people think it > should be generally adopted *instead* of rivaling schemes > like SPF due to Yahoo's 800lb Gorilla factor. And you know that... How? Fact is that 'YASAF' does more. So how do you know that people aren't thinking it should be generally adopted due to the fact that it does more? That's my point. You're simply pissed at Yahoo's scheme because, apparently, it isn't SPF. Not because of what it is. > > SPF doesn't meet their (Yahoo's) needs, for several reasons. It > > *isn't* useless, but it's nowhere near as useful (to Yahoo > > and other large > > ISPs) as the crypto solution. And it does diddly for the > > legal side of the matter. > I never demanded that Yahoo should adopt SPF instead of > YASAF. It sure is Yahoo's right to deploy for themselves > whatever fits *them* best. What I don't like is the outlook > of 800lb Yahoo trying to impose whatever fits *them* best > onto the world. Besides, from what I read on the news about > YASAF, Yahoo seems to be trying to commercialize it[1]: You are delusional if you think that Yahoo is trying to impose anything on anyone! That's another point: Yahoo's scheme adds value (for them) even if absolutely no-one else implements it, yet the chance of that happening is slight. > | [...] Garlinghouse said Yahoo is seeking a patent on the DomainKeys > | technology, but will license it at no charge to anyone who wants it. > | Yahoo is also creating software that will add the > | capability to Qmail > | and Sendmail, two of the most common e-mail server programs. This > | software will be distributed free. [...] > > "free"? That sure *sounds* like "free bear", not "free > speech". But we won't know for sure until we hear more from > Yahoo. Let's wait and see... Get over yourself, Julian! Since Yahoo isn't *preventing* you from implementing whatever the heck you want, it *is* 'free speech': you can implement SPF, ignore Yahoo, do whatever the blue blazes you want. And unless you have a totally different interpretation of 'at no charge', Yahoo's scheme *and* software is also free... (and I'd note that since they use a modified version of Qmail, the fact that they're also implementing it for Sendmail sounds like they're doing some work for lots of unCourier'd people for free, too (in the sense of 'at no charge'). Also, there are sound reasons to patent this sort of thing, not least of which is the protection of the technology against claims of infringement and (probably more so) the potential for derivative works. Note that last I checked many standards (like Ethernet) are based on patented technology. Malc. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
