Subject: Re: spoofing email addresses

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 May 2004 17:25:59 +0000

[email-masked] (Vernon Schryver) writes:
> ...
> If your ISP is incompetent at configuring an SMTP server, then whose
> fault is it that you continue to buy bad service?   Why don't you treat
> your incompetent locl provider of "Client only, non-public address"
> or "Client only, public address" as a provider of those services and
> use them only to connect to a system where you get competent Full
> Internet Connectivity?

Indeed.  See my comments at <http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/>.  Note that
it's probably time I added some SMTP-AUTH/IMAPS/webdav providers to the list,
since not everybody can run their own 1U, but everybody can configure their
mail clients and web authoring tools to deal with more-distant providers.
-- 
Paul Vixie

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:05:11 -0700

>> As the AD who sponsored this work, I have to disagree.   ...
>> The recent interim meeting resulted in an agreement to work on
>> a converged spec taking ideas from SPF and Caller-ID.

>Why?  These are latecomers to the field.  Or is it because of this:

><http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=2110049
8>

I place a very high premium on the ability to get something to 
happen. better latecommers who have influence than an obsolete
internet draft that has been ignored.

All the authors of the drafts have acknowledged the contribution
you and Hadmut made in this work. You showed no interest in being 
involved.

>If there's a more blatant example of rubber stamping in the history of
>IETF, then I hope a better historian than I can share the archives with
>me.

As you know very well I very much favor the OASIS model of standards
agreement where Working Groups are allowed to suceed or fail on their
own merits. Microsoft and the SPF group very clearly have the ability
to establish a de facto standard here without standards review if they
choose. That may be a fact that you do not like but it is still a fact.

Another fact is that despite having that ability to choose their own
path they have for the time being decided to participate in the IETF
process.

The fact is that Meng and Bob have both made significant concessions
in the merged proposals, concessions that they had previously been 
unable to accept. As a result both parties have achieved a result that
meets all their 'dealbreaker' objectives. The long term and short term
engineering objectives are both met. This does not represent a 'rubber
stamp' in my view.

I do not know what to make of your conspiracy 'elephant' theory. I
think you are way off the mark, I have not heard anyone call the plan
"fully verified opt-in", but it is hardly a secret.  

Yes I believe that within a short time very few people will be 
accepting any mail from any source that is not authenticated and
accredited as being trustworthy. That is simply a process in this
industry that has been underway for a long time, you bear a large
personal responsibility for this process, you started it. 

It would certainly be a good thing if the IESG and the IAB spent 
their time considering important questions about the future of the
Internet and the big picture architectural issues. But they don't
and they will have no time to do so until they get out of the 
business of trying to micromanage working groups to save themselves 
from themselves.

If this issue had been thought through five years ago there might
perhaps be a different outcome possible. Witholding recognition of
the standard is not going to change the outcome. 

		Phill